Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 12, 2025

Concepcion v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:24-cv-05270
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Concepcion v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Koeltl reversed the agency’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and the Social Security Administration are affected. The plaintiff must be offered a hearing, and the Commissioner must issue a new decision after further administrative proceedings.

What happened

In Concepcion v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court entered judgment after referring to a stipulation and order dated February 12, 2025. The judgment does not explain the underlying dispute or the reason for the Commissioner’s reversal.

The court ordered the Commissioner of Social Security to reconsider the matter through additional administrative proceedings. On remand, the Commissioner must offer the plaintiff a hearing and issue a new decision.

Judge Koeltl’s court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the action under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The detailed version

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

Case
Concepcion v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-05270
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
Feb. 12, 2025

Background

The judgment concerns the plaintiff’s challenge to a decision by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment refers to the reasons stated in a stipulation and order dated February 12, 2025, but that stipulation and order is not included in the provided text. The judgment therefore does not state what issue the Commissioner previously decided or why that decision was reversed.

Ruling

The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the action to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A remand sends the matter back to the agency for additional proceedings rather than ending the administrative review. The Commissioner must offer the plaintiff an opportunity for a hearing and issue a new decision. Judge John Koeltl is identified as the presiding judge in the supplied case information; the judgment itself is dated and entered by the clerk of court.

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.