Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled June 17, 2025

Afful v. O'Malley

Docket
1:24-cv-06240
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Afful v. O'Malley, the court reversed and remanded the Social Security decision for further administrative proceedings.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

What happened

Afful v. O'Malley concerns a challenge to the Commissioner's Social Security decision. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts or the specific reasons for the challenge.

The court relied on the parties' June 16, 2025 stipulation and order. It directed further consideration of the plaintiff's symptoms and, as warranted by the reconsidered evidence, the plaintiff's residual functional capacity—the ability to perform work-related activities.

The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the action for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the Appeals Council must direct an administrative law judge to offer the plaintiff a hearing, complete the record as needed, and issue a new decision. No judge is identified in the opinion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Afful v. O'Malley · No. 1:24-cv-06240
Date
June 17, 2025

Background

The opinion is a judgment in a Social Security case. It states that the judgment follows the court's stipulation and order dated June 16, 2025. The opinion does not provide the underlying facts, the challenged administrative decision's reasoning, or the specific arguments made by either party.

Ruling

The court ordered that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and that the action be remanded under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A remand sends the case back to the Social Security Administration for additional administrative proceedings.

On remand, the Appeals Council must direct the administrative law judge to further consider the plaintiff's symptoms; reconsider the plaintiff's residual functional capacity, meaning the work-related abilities the plaintiff retains, as warranted by the reconsidered evidence; offer the plaintiff a hearing; take any further action needed to complete the administrative record; and issue a new decision.

Disposition

The Commissioner's decision was reversed, and the action was remanded for further administrative proceedings. The opinion 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.