Timothy P. Greeley
Judge Greeley no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Greeley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Greeley treated a medical record as material to remand when it could affect the disability determination and the claimant had established good cause for its late presentation.
“The post hearing evidence is material evidence that should be considered on remand.”
He allowed qualified engineering testimony about the function and maintenance of an automatic door while excluding opinions that lacked a reliable basis.
“As a mechanical engineer, Roger Davis is qualified to testify about the function and operation of the door and the issues regarding maintenance of the door.”
In disability review, he relied on a claimant's own reported activities when they conflicted with alleged work-preclusive limitations.
“Plaintiff’s own statements regarding his daily activities establish that he has a capacity for at least light duty work.”
Procedural preferences
Greeley applied the deferential substantial-evidence standard even where the record might also have supported the opposite result.
“This Court, however, is not permitted to overturn the decision of the Commissioner, even if the Court would have ruled differently if it was considering the evidence de novo.”
He required each contract claim and theory to be presented to the contracting officer before it could be added in federal court.
“It was the obligation of plaintiff to present each of these claims in the administrative action.”
Cautions
A request for sentence-six remand failed where the evidence already existed before the administrative decision and the claimant did not show it could change the result.
“Evidence is not new if it was in existence prior to the ALJ’s decision.”
He enforced the distinction between administrative exhaustion and futility, refusing new unexhausted payment theories even after the agency had denied related claims.
“The fact that IHS may have denied all the claims does not relieve plaintiff from this obligation, as a futility assertion is not available as an excuse not to exhaust each claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, I find that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed.”
“Accordingly, I find that there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Commissioner denying plaintiff’s request for disability benefits and the decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed.”
“Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision denying plaintiff’s request for benefits will be affirmed.”
“Therefore, the Court is constrained to find that there is substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision and that the denial of SSI benefits will be affirmed.”
“Therefore, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision and the denial of disability insurance benefits will be affirmed.”
“Accordingly, the Court finds there is not substantial evidence to support the decision denying plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits and therefore remands this matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”
“Accordingly, this case will be remanded pursuant to sentence six for further consideration.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed.”
“Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”
“Accordingly, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s findings. Plaintiff’s request for award of benefits will be denied.”
“Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s request for relief is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 390 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 259.5 days (N = 6).
The enumerated historical docket slice consists of consent Social Security appeals assigned directly to Greeley. All seven sampled cases terminated before his 2019 retirement; this narrow subject-matter cohort is not a complete picture of his referral work.
A historical record
Judge Greeley no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.