Brugger v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-06365
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Brugger v. Commissioner, Judge Engelmayer reversed and remanded the Social Security decision for a hearing and new decision.
Chelsie Anne Brugger and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security; the case will return to administrative proceedings for a hearing opportunity and a new decision.
What happened
In Brugger v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court entered judgment for a further review of Chelsie Anne Brugger’s Social Security case. The opinion does not explain the underlying dispute.
The court reversed the challenged decision and sent the case back to the Commissioner for additional administrative proceedings, including an opportunity for a hearing and a new decision. The judgment states that this result was based on the parties’ stipulation and order dated January 17, 2025.
Judge Paul Engelmayer was the assigned judge. The judgment was dated January 17, 2025, and was entered by the court clerk.
The detailed version
- Brugger v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-06365
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 17, 2025
Background
The opinion is a judgment in Chelsie Anne Brugger’s action against the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. It states that the judgment is based on the court’s stipulation and order dated January 17, 2025. The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security claim, the earlier agency decision, or the parties’ reasons for agreeing to the remand.
Ruling
The court reversed the challenged decision and remanded, or sent the case back, to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is to undergo further administrative proceedings, including an opportunity for a hearing and a new decision. The judgment cites Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993), concerning this type of remand.
Disposition
The judgment was dated January 17, 2025, in New York, New York. The court clerk entered it for the court. Judge Paul Engelmayer is identified as the judge in the case information provided.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.