Williams v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
- 1:23-cv-00049
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Williams v. Commissioner, the court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and sent the case back for further proceedings.
The judgment directly affects Tanisha Williams and the Commissioner of Social Security by requiring further administrative proceedings. The opinion does not describe the practical consequences beyond the remand.
What happened
In Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security, Tanisha Williams challenged a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment does not explain the underlying dispute or the reasons for the Commissioner’s decision.
The judgment says the court’s action was based on a Stipulation and Order dated July 18, 2023. The opinion does not provide the terms of that stipulation.
The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and sent the case back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The judge is not identified in the opinion; the judgment was signed by the court clerk.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · No. 1:23-cv-00049
- July 19, 2023
Background
Tanisha Williams was the plaintiff, and the Commissioner of Social Security was the defendant. The opinion is a judgment and does not describe the underlying Social Security claim, the Commissioner’s reasoning, or the specific issues raised by the parties.
Basis for the Judgment
The judgment states that the court acted for the reasons given in a Stipulation and Order dated July 18, 2023. The text provided does not include that stipulation or explain its terms.
Disposition
The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the action to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A remand sends the matter back to the agency for additional proceedings. The opinion does not identify a judge; the judgment was dated July 19, 2023, and signed by Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court, by a deputy clerk.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.