Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 27, 2025

Vaughan Wellington v. Dudek

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:25-cv-03461
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kerry Ann Vaughan Wellington v. Bisignano, Judge Cronan reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the Social Security action for further proceedings and a new decision.

Who this affects

Kerry Ann Vaughan Wellington and the Commissioner of Social Security; the Commissioner must conduct further administrative proceedings and issue a new decision.

What happened

Kerry Ann Vaughan Wellington v. Frank Bisignano is a Social Security case in which the court entered judgment based on a stipulation and order dated August 27, 2025. The opinion does not explain the underlying dispute or the parties’ arguments.

The court reversed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision and sent the action back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings and a new decision. The judgment cites the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Judge John Cronan’s court entered the remand judgment on August 27, 2025. The available opinion text does not provide the reasons stated in the referenced stipulation and order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Vaughan Wellington v. Dudek · No. 1:25-cv-03461
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Aug. 27, 2025

Background

Kerry Ann Vaughan Wellington sued Frank Bisignano, the Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment states that the court acted for the reasons given in a stipulation and order dated August 27, 2025. That stipulation and order is not included in the provided opinion text, so the underlying legal dispute and the parties’ positions cannot be described from this document alone.

Ruling

The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the action to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings and a new decision. A remand sends the matter back to the agency for additional proceedings. The judgment identifies the remand as one under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and cites Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).

Effect

The judgment does not itself state what the Commissioner must decide on remand or what the new decision must contain. It states only that further administrative proceedings and a new decision are required.

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.