Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Mar. 5, 2025

Blanding v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:24-cv-04578
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Blanding v. Commissioner: Judge Netburn reversed and remanded the Social Security case for a hearing and new decision.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social Security are affected. The case returns to the Social Security Administration, where the administrative law judge must offer the plaintiff a hearing opportunity and issue a new decision.

What happened

In Blanding v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court entered judgment in favor of further proceedings before the Social Security Administration. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or explain the reasons in detail.

The court reversed and remanded the action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the administrative law judge must give the plaintiff an opportunity for a hearing and issue a new decision.

Judge Sarah Netburn is identified as the judge. The judgment was dated March 5, 2025, and states that it followed a March 4, 2025 stipulation and order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Blanding v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-04578
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
Mar. 5, 2025

Disposition

The court reversed and remanded the action to the Commissioner of Social Security under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-four remand sends the case back for additional administrative proceedings after a court judgment.

Required Proceedings on Remand

The administrative law judge must offer the plaintiff an opportunity for a hearing and issue a new decision. The judgment states that these directions are based on the court's March 4, 2025 stipulation and order.

Limits of the Opinion

The judgment does not explain the underlying Social Security dispute, identify the alleged administrative error, or state what the new decision must conclude. It cites Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).

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.