Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled July 7, 2021

Colliton v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:18-cv-05295
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Colliton v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Nelson Roman reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings after an Appointments Clause issue.

Who this affects

Claudia Ursula Harris Colliton and the Commissioner of Social Security; the Appeals Council must assign the case to a different administrative law judge, offer a new hearing, and issue a new decision.

What happened

In Colliton v. Commissioner of Social Security, Claudia Ursula Harris Colliton’s case was sent back to the Social Security Administration for more proceedings. The opinion does not describe the underlying benefits decision.

The remand followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, which said a claimant may raise an Appointments Clause challenge for the first time in federal court instead of raising it before the agency. Colliton indicated that she wanted the case sent back.

Judge Nelson Roman’s court reversed and remanded the case under sentence four of the Social Security law. The Appeals Council must assign the case to a different administrative law judge, provide a new hearing opportunity, and issue a new decision.

The detailed version

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

Case
Colliton v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:18-cv-05295
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
July 7, 2021

Background

Claudia Ursula Harris Colliton brought this Social Security case against the Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment states that the court’s action was based on a stipulation and order dated July 6, 2021. The opinion does not provide details about the underlying benefits decision or the specific claims being evaluated.

Reason for Remand

The case was remanded in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021). The Supreme Court stated that a claimant does not have to raise an Appointments Clause challenge before the Social Security Administration and may instead present that issue for the first time in federal court. Colliton indicated that she wanted a remand.

Ruling and Effect

The court ordered that the action be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the Appeals Council must assign Colliton’s case to a different administrative law judge, offer her a new hearing, and issue a new decision. The judgment was dated July 7, 2021, and was entered by the clerk of court.

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.