Lachenal v. O'Malley
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-03839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lachenal v. O'Malley, Judge Roman ordered a Social Security case remanded for further proceedings and denied the plaintiff’s motion as moot.
William Gardner Lachenal, whose Social Security case was remanded for a new hearing and decision and who may submit additional evidence; the Commissioner of Social Security must conduct the further proceedings.
What happened
In Lachenal v. O'Malley, the parties agreed that the Social Security case should be sent back to the Commissioner for more administrative proceedings.
The remand requires a new hearing and a new decision. William Gardner Lachenal may submit additional evidence supporting his claim. The court also denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice as moot.
Judge Nelson Stephen Roman ordered the remand, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion and the action.
The detailed version
- Lachenal v. O'Malley · No. 7:24-cv-03839
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 12, 2024
Background
William Gardner Lachenal brought this Social Security case against Martin J. O'Malley, identified in the caption as the Commissioner of Social Security. The parties submitted a stipulation agreeing that the action should be reversed and sent back to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-four remand is a court-ordered return of a Social Security case to the agency for further proceedings.
Order
The court ordered the case remanded for further administrative proceedings, a new hearing, and issuance of a new decision. Lachenal may submit additional evidence supporting his claim. The order also directed the Clerk to enter judgment.
Other Motion and Disposition
Judge Nelson Stephen Roman denied Lachenal's motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice as moot. The Clerk was directed to terminate that motion, listed as ECF No. 10, and to terminate the action. The opinion does not state the outcome of the new administrative proceedings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.