Capellan v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Cave
- 1:24-cv-03714
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Capellan v. King, Judge Cave reversed and remanded Gregorio Capellan’s Social Security case for a hearing and new decision.
Gregorio Capellan will receive further administrative proceedings, including an opportunity for a hearing and a new decision by an Administrative Law Judge; the Commissioner of Social Security must conduct those proceedings.
What happened
Gregorio Capellan v. Michelle King concerned Capellan’s challenge to a Social Security decision. The court’s judgment states that the parties’ earlier stipulation and order provided the reasons for the result.
The court reversed the decision and sent the case back to the Social Security Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge must give Capellan an opportunity for a hearing and issue a new decision.
Judge Sarah Cave entered the judgment on February 4, 2025. The judgment was issued under sentence four of the Social Security statute, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The detailed version
- Capellan v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-03714
- Sarah Cave
- Feb. 4, 2025
Background
The opinion is a judgment in Gregorio Capellan’s Social Security case against Michelle King, identified in the caption as the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment states that the reasons for the result appear in the parties’ stipulation and the court’s order dated February 4, 2025. Those materials are not included in the provided text, so the judgment does not explain the underlying dispute or identify the specific alleged error.
Ruling
The court reversed the prior decision and remanded, or sent the case back, to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the Administrative Law Judge must offer Capellan an opportunity for a hearing and issue a new decision.
Disposition
The action was reversed and remanded. The judgment was dated February 4, 2025, and entered by the clerk of court.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.