Sandoval v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Paul Davison
- 7:20-cv-06500
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sandoval v. Commissioner, Judge Davison ordered a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge.
Cecilia Isabel Condor Sandoval’s Social Security benefits case must receive a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge; the Commissioner of Social Security must conduct or arrange that hearing.
What happened
In Sandoval v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court addressed whether Cecilia Isabel Condor Sandoval’s case should return to the Social Security Commissioner for a new hearing. The request followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul.
Sandoval asked for the return of her case for a new hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed administrative law judge. The Commissioner of Social Security did not oppose the request.
Judge Davison ordered that the case be returned for a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge. The opinion does not decide whether Sandoval is entitled to benefits.
The detailed version
- Sandoval v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:20-cv-06500
- Paul Davison
- July 8, 2021
Background
The case concerns Cecilia Isabel Condor Sandoval’s claim for Social Security benefits. An administrative law judge had previously heard and decided her claim. The opinion states that the court acted in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021).
Parties’ Positions
On June 9, 2021, the court directed the parties to discuss whether the case should be returned to the Social Security Commissioner for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge different from the judge who previously handled Sandoval’s claim. On July 1, 2021, Sandoval requested that the case be returned for that reason. The Commissioner did not oppose the request.
Ruling
Judge Paul E. Davison ordered that the case be remanded to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge. The opinion does not decide whether Sandoval qualifies for benefits or otherwise resolve the underlying benefits claim.
Disposition
The case was remanded for a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.