Farley v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2015cv01282 - Document 24 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Commissioner's motion for leave to respond instanter (Doc. # 23 ), the response is deemed filed. Plaintiff's motion to clarify the judgment (Doc. # 22 ) is denied. Judge John R. Adams on 11/23/16. (K,C)

Download PDF
Farley v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION GREGORY A. FARLEY, Plaintiff, -vsCOMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:15CV1282 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On August 31, 2016, the Magistrate Judge in this matter issued a final order (Doc 20). Subsequent to that order, the Magistrate Judge to whom the parties had consented retired. Accordingly, the matter was returned to the undersigned. The undersigned now resolves the pending post-judgment motions. Plaintiff Gregory Farley has moved to clarify the final judgment in this matter. Doc. 22. The Commissioner has moved for leave to respond to that motion. Doc. 23. The motion for leave (Doc. 23) is GRANTED and the response is deemed filed. In his motion to clarify, Farley requests that Court specify the hypothetical question that will be posed to the vocational expert upon remand. Farley contends that “review would be thwarted if the ALJ on remand were free to excise from the hypothetical question the prohibitions on stooping and exposure to orders.” Doc. 22 at 2. However, Farley has offered no reason to suggest that the ALJ would ignore the opinion issued herein that identified the Dockets.Justia.com deficiencies in the original proceedings. As such, the Court finds it unnecessary to add further details to its order of remand. The motion to clarify (Doc. 22) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 23, 2016 /s/ John R. Adams_______________ JOHN R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.