Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Jan. 29, 2025

Santos v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:24-cv-04830
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Santos v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Ramos reversed and remanded the Social Security decision for further proceedings, a new hearing, and a new decision.

Who this affects

Nelson Alexander Santos and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the agency for further proceedings, a new hearing, and a new decision.

What happened

In Santos v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court entered judgment on January 29, 2025, based on the parties’ stipulation and the court’s accompanying order.

The court reversed the decision and sent the action back to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings, a new hearing, and a new decision under Section 405(g) of the Social Security law.

Judge Edgardo Ramos is identified as the judge in the case information provided. The judgment was dated January 29, 2025, and was entered by the court clerk.

The detailed version

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

Case
Santos v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-04830
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Jan. 29, 2025

Background

The opinion is a judgment in Nelson Alexander Santos’s action against Michelle King, Commissioner of Social Security. It states that the judgment was entered for the reasons given in the court’s Stipulation and Order dated January 29, 2025. The opinion text does not provide the underlying factual or legal dispute.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-four remand sends the case back to the agency after the court reverses the agency’s decision. The court ordered further administrative proceedings, a new hearing, and issuance of a new decision. The judgment cites Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).

Disposition

The action was reversed and remanded for the specified further proceedings, new hearing, and new decision. The opinion does not state what the Commissioner’s new decision must be or provide additional details about the parties’ stipulation. Judge Edgardo Ramos is the judge identified in the case information provided.

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.