Acuna v. Saul
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:20-cv-04635
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Acuna v. Saul, Judge Gorenstein reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the Social Security case for further record development and a new decision.
The plaintiff and the Social Security Administration, through the Commissioner of Social Security, are affected. The case must return for further administrative proceedings, including possible further review by an Administrative Law Judge.
What happened
In Acuna v. Saul, the court reversed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision and sent the case back for further proceedings. The judgment relied on a stipulation and order dated April 2, 2021.
On remand, the administrative agency must further develop the record and take additional administrative action. If the Appeals Council sends the case to an Administrative Law Judge, the judge must consider whether the plaintiff is disabled, offer a new hearing, issue a new decision, and further evaluate whether the impairments meet Listing 1.04(A).
Judge Gabriel Gorenstein’s court entered a sentence-four remand under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The judgment does not explain the specific reasons for reversing the Commissioner’s decision beyond stating that further development and administrative action were warranted.
The detailed version
- Acuna v. Saul · No. 1:20-cv-04635
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Apr. 2, 2021
Background
The plaintiff challenged the final decision of Andrew Saul, the Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment states that the court acted for the reasons given in a stipulation and order dated April 2, 2021. The opinion text provided does not include that stipulation and order or describe the underlying disability claim in detail.
Ruling
The court reversed the Commissioner’s final decision and remanded the action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-four remand allows a federal court to reverse or modify the Commissioner’s decision and send the matter back for further administrative proceedings. The judgment states that further development of the record and additional administrative action were warranted.
Proceedings Required on Remand
If the Appeals Council remands the matter to an Administrative Law Judge, the Administrative Law Judge must conduct further proceedings and develop the administrative record as necessary to decide whether the plaintiff is disabled under the Social Security Act. The plaintiff must be offered a new hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge must issue a new decision. The Administrative Law Judge must also further evaluate and explain whether the claimant’s impairments meet the criteria of Listing 1.04(A).
Effect of the Judgment
The Commissioner’s decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The judgment does not state that the plaintiff was found disabled or direct an award of benefits. It also does not provide the specific factual or legal reasons contained in the incorporated stipulation and order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.