Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security
- John Koeltl
- 1:19-cv-04095-JGK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Andrews v. Commissioner, Judge Koeltl denied Michael Andrews’s motion to reconsider an earlier Social Security remand.
Michael Andrews’s request for reconsideration was denied; the Commissioner of Social Security was not ordered to take new action by this order.
What happened
In Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security, Michael Andrews asked the court to reconsider an earlier order that reversed the Commissioner’s decision and sent the matter back for further administrative proceedings. Those proceedings later ended with an Administrative Law Judge ruling against Andrews.
The court said Andrews had not shown a change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a serious unfairness that would justify reconsideration. The court also noted that Andrews could ask the Social Security Appeals Council to review the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and could later seek review in the District Court.
Judge Koeltl denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk to close Docket No. 26. The order was mailed to Andrews, whom the opinion identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-04095-JGK
- John Koeltl
- Sept. 7, 2020
Background
Michael Andrews moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order. That earlier order reversed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision and remanded, or sent back, the matter to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings.
The opinion states that the additional proceedings occurred before an Administrative Law Judge and resulted in a decision unfavorable to Andrews. It also states that Andrews could request review by the Appeals Council, seek expedited treatment, and then seek review in the District Court again if dissatisfied with the result.
Legal standard
The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy. It said reconsideration should be granted only if the moving party shows an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Ruling
The court concluded that Andrews had not shown any basis to reconsider its prior decision. Judge John G. Koeltl therefore denied the motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to close Docket No. 26. The order was mailed to Andrews, whom the opinion identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on a motion seeking reconsideration of an earlier decision rather than deciding the underlying Social Security claim on the merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.