Bisignano v. United States
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-05481
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Frank Bisignano v. United States, Judge Abrams reversed the Commissioner’s decision and sent the matter back for further administrative action.
The parties to the Social Security matter, including the Commissioner of Social Security; the judgment requires further administrative action but does not identify the underlying claimant or specify the action required.
What happened
In Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security v. United States, the court entered judgment concerning the Commissioner’s final decision. The judgment refers to reasons stated in an earlier September 9, 2025, order, but that order is not included here.
The court reversed the Commissioner’s final decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative action. The judgment also ordered that the matter be dismissed in accordance with Melkonyan v. Sullivan.
Judge Ronnie Abrams is identified as the judge for this case. The available judgment does not explain the specific error in the Commissioner’s decision or what further administrative action is required.
The detailed version
- Bisignano v. United States · No. 1:25-cv-05481
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 10, 2025
Disposition
The court entered judgment reversing the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remanding the matter to the defendant for further administrative action. It also ordered that the matter be dismissed in accordance with Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991).
Basis for the ruling
The judgment states that the ruling was made “[f]or the reasons stated in the Court’s Order dated September 9, 2025.” That earlier order is not provided in the opinion text available here, so the specific legal basis for reversing the Commissioner’s decision cannot be determined from this judgment alone.
Effect
The Commissioner’s final decision was reversed, and the matter was sent back for additional administrative action. The judgment does not state what specific proceedings must occur on remand. It separately states that the matter was dismissed in accordance with Melkonyan.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.