Filed: Sep. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND THE PLAINTIFF'S SOCIAL SECURITY ACTION DEEMED UNOPPOSED BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , District Judge . On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff Michelle Farnsworth filed a complaint seeking review of the Commissioner's denial of her social security benefits. On May 11, 2017, this Court entered a scheduling order in this action. (Doc. 7). Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, Defendant was required to evaluate this case and deter
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND THE PLAINTIFF'S SOCIAL SECURITY ACTION DEEMED UNOPPOSED BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , District Judge . On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff Michelle Farnsworth filed a complaint seeking review of the Commissioner's denial of her social security benefits. On May 11, 2017, this Court entered a scheduling order in this action. (Doc. 7). Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, Defendant was required to evaluate this case and determ..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND THE PLAINTIFF'S SOCIAL SECURITY ACTION DEEMED UNOPPOSED
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, District Judge.
On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff Michelle Farnsworth filed a complaint seeking review of the Commissioner's denial of her social security benefits. On May 11, 2017, this Court entered a scheduling order in this action. (Doc. 7). Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, Defendant was required to evaluate this case and determine whether remand to the Commissioner is warranted. (Doc. 7 at 6). In the event that Defendant did not agree to remand, Defendant was required to file a responsive brief that includes:
(a) a plain description of appellant's alleged physical or emotional impairments, when appellant contends they became disabling, and how they disable appellant from work;
(b) a summary of all relevant medical evidence including an explanation of the significance of clinical and laboratory findings and the purpose and effect of prescribed medication and therapy;
(c) a summary of the relevant testimony at the administrative hearing;
(d) a recitation of the Commissioner's findings and conclusions relevant to appellant's claims;
(e) a short, separate statement of each of appellant's legal claims stated in terms of the insufficiency of the evidence to support a particular finding of fact or reliance upon an erroneous legal standard; and
(f) argument separately addressing each claimed error. Argument in support of each claim of error must be supported by citation to legal authority and explanation of the application of such authority to the facts of the particular case.
(Doc. 7-1 at 3-4). Defendant was warned that briefs that do not substantially comply with these requirements will be stricken. (Doc. 7-1 at 4).
On February 13, 2018, Defendant filed her responsive brief which fails to comply with the briefing requirements set forth above. (Doc. 19). Despite an extension of time, Defendant's responsive brief fails to include a summary of the relevant medical evidence and a summary of the relevant hearing testimony. Perhaps most troubling, Defendant failed to meaningfully respond to many of the claimed errors raised in Plaintiff's opening brief. The Court cannot overlook such disregard of the briefing requirements imposed in this action.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Defendant to SHOW CAUSE in writing on or before September 21, 2018, why her responsive brief should not be stricken from the record and Plaintiff's appeal deemed unopposed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
