Pelayo v. Kijakazi
- Paul Davison
- 7:22-cv-01725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pelayo v. Kijakazi, Judge Davison reversed the Social Security decision and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Daniel Pelayo and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.
What happened
In Pelayo v. Kijakazi, the court reviewed a challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision. The judgment states that further development of the record and additional administrative action were warranted.
The court sent the case back under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a provision allowing a federal court to reverse or change the Commissioner’s decision and remand the case. The judgment says that, if the Appeals Council sends the case to an administrative law judge, the judge will conduct further proceedings, develop the record as needed, may hold a new hearing, and issue a new decision about whether Daniel Pelayo is disabled under the Social Security Act.
Judge Davison’s court entered judgment reversing the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the case for additional administrative proceedings. The judgment does not identify the specific errors or record gaps that required remand.
The detailed version
- Pelayo v. Kijakazi · No. 7:22-cv-01725
- Paul Davison
- Nov. 14, 2022
Background
Daniel Pelayo challenged the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment refers to the parties’ stipulation and the court’s November 14, 2022, order. It states that the Commissioner determined that further development of the record and additional administrative action were warranted.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court reversed the Commissioner’s final decision and remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-four remand sends the case back to the agency after the court reverses or modifies the Commissioner’s decision. The judgment explains that remand is appropriate when the administrative record has gaps or when an administrative law judge has made a legal error.
If the Appeals Council remands the case to an administrative law judge, the judge will conduct further proceedings and develop the administrative record as necessary. The judgment states that the proceedings may include offering Pelayo a new hearing and issuing a new decision on whether he is disabled under the Social Security Act.
Disposition
The court entered a final order and judgment reversing the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the action for additional administrative proceedings. The judgment does not specify the particular legal error or missing evidence that led to the remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.