Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Nov. 8, 2024

Vega v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Andrew Krause
Docket
7:24-cv-02311
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Vega v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Krause reversed and remanded the case for a new hearing and decision.

Who this affects

Jose Miguel Vega and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case must undergo further administrative proceedings, including a new hearing and a new decision.

What happened

Jose Miguel Vega sued Martin O’Malley, the Commissioner of Social Security, in the Southern District of New York. The judgment refers to a stipulation and order dated November 6, 2024, but does not explain the underlying dispute or the reasons for the remand.

The court reversed the prior decision and sent the case back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, a new hearing, and a new decision. The judgment says this remand was made under sentence four of the federal Social Security judicial-review statute, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The judgment was entered on November 8, 2024. Judge Andrew Krause is identified as the judge for this case, although the judgment itself was signed by Acting Clerk Daniel Ortiz on behalf of the court.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Vega v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:24-cv-02311
Judge
Andrew Krause
Date
Nov. 8, 2024

Background

Jose Miguel Vega brought this Social Security case against Martin O’Malley, identified in the judgment as the Commissioner of Social Security. The provided judgment does not describe the administrative decision under review, the parties’ arguments, or the specific legal issue in dispute.

Court’s Action

The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the parties’ stipulation and the court’s November 6, 2024, order, the action was “reversed and remanded” to the Commissioner. A remand sends the matter back to the agency for additional proceedings. The judgment specifically requires further administrative proceedings, a new hearing, and issuance of a new decision. It identifies the legal basis as sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the provision allowing a federal court to enter judgment reversing the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the case.

Result

The court entered judgment reversing and remanding the action. The judgment does not state what error led to that result or what the Commissioner’s new decision must conclude. The judgment is dated November 8, 2024, and Judge Andrew Krause is the judge identified for the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.