Bordonada v. O'Malley
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:24-cv-04092
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bordonada v. O'Malley, Judge Netburn reversed and remanded the Social Security action for further proceedings, including a new hearing and decision.
Lisette Bordonada and the Social Security Administration, which must conduct further proceedings and issue a new decision.
What happened
Bordonada v. O'Malley concerns Lisette Bordonada's action against Martin O'Malley, the Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment says the action was reversed and sent back to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
The judgment gives no details about the underlying claim, the agency's earlier decision, or the reasons for the remand. It says the remand was based on the parties' stipulation and the court's October 9, 2024 order.
Judge Sarah Netburn's court ordered further administrative proceedings, including an opportunity for a new hearing and issuance of a new decision. The judgment does not state what the new decision must conclude.
The detailed version
- Bordonada v. O'Malley · No. 1:24-cv-04092
- Sarah Netburn
- Oct. 9, 2024
Background
Lisette Bordonada brought this Social Security action against Martin O'Malley, identified in the caption as the Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment provides no factual background or description of the benefits issue being challenged.
Basis for the Judgment
The judgment states that the action was reversed and remanded for the reasons given in the court's stipulation and order dated October 9, 2024. A sentence-four remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) sends a Social Security case back to the Commissioner for additional administrative proceedings. The judgment cites Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).
Disposition
The court ordered that the action be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, including the opportunity for a new hearing and a new decision. The judgment does not state the outcome the Commissioner must reach or whether Bordonada is entitled to benefits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.