Carrasco v. Commissioner of Social Security
- 1:25-cv-09431
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rickent S. Carrasco v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded for a new hearing and decision.
Rickent S. Carrasco and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, including an opportunity for a new hearing and a new decision.
What happened
Rickent S. Carrasco v. Commissioner of Social Security concerns a challenge to a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or explain the reasons for the Commissioner’s decision.
The court stated that, under a July 15, 2026 stipulation and order, the Commissioner’s decision was reversed. The case was sent back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, including an opportunity for Carrasco to receive a new hearing and a new decision.
The judgment was dated July 17, 2026, and was entered by the court through the Clerk of Court. The opinion does not identify the judge who issued the underlying ruling.
The detailed version
- Carrasco v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:25-cv-09431
- July 17, 2026
Background
Rickent S. Carrasco sued the Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment does not explain the underlying claims, the Commissioner’s decision, or the terms of the parties’ July 15, 2026 stipulation and order.
Ruling
The court ordered that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and that the action be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. Those proceedings must include offering Carrasco an opportunity for a new hearing and issuing a new decision. 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).
Disposition
The Commissioner’s decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for further administrative proceedings, including a new hearing opportunity and a new decision. The opinion does not identify the judge; the document was dated and entered by the Clerk of Court.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.