Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Apr. 4, 2025

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:24-cv-07605
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Filiberto Gonzalez v. Leland Dudek, Judge Parker reversed and remanded the Social Security case for further proceedings, a new hearing, and a new decision.

Who this affects

The judgment affects Filiberto Gonzalez and the Social Security Administration, which must conduct further proceedings, hold a new hearing, and issue a new decision.

What happened

Filiberto Gonzalez brought this Social Security case against Leland Dudek, the Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment does not explain the underlying dispute or the reasons for the requested relief.

The court ordered that the case be reversed and sent back to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). It directed the Commissioner to conduct further administrative proceedings, hold a new hearing, and issue a new decision.

Judge Katharine Parker entered the judgment on April 4, 2025. The judgment states that the ruling was based on a stipulation and order dated April 3, 2025, but that document is not included here.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-07605
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Apr. 4, 2025

Background

The available document is a judgment in Filiberto Gonzalez's case against Leland Dudek, the Commissioner of Social Security. It provides no details about the administrative decision being challenged, the parties' arguments, or the specific legal error involved.

Ruling

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

Basis and Scope

The judgment says the ruling was made for the reasons stated in a stipulation and order dated April 3, 2025. That stipulation and order is not included in the provided text, so the basis for the reversal and remand cannot be determined from this document alone. Judge Katharine Parker is identified in the supplied case information; the judgment itself is signed by the court clerk's office.

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.