Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Cave
- 1:23-cv-02977
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Manasha S. Thompson v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Judge Cave reversed and remanded the Social Security case for a new hearing and decision.
Manasha S. Thompson and the Social Security Administration proceedings involving her claim; the Commissioner must conduct further proceedings, including a new hearing and decision.
What happened
Manasha S. Thompson sued Kilolo Kijakazi, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, in the Southern District of New York. The judgment refers to a stipulation and order dated July 27, 2023, but does not explain the underlying dispute.
The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings, including a new hearing and a new decision. The Appeals Council will send the case to an administrative law judge for those proceedings.
Judge Sarah Cave is identified as the judge for this summary. The judgment is dated July 27, 2023, and does not state what specific error led to the remand.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:23-cv-02977
- Sarah Cave
- July 27, 2023
Background
Manasha S. Thompson brought this action against Kilolo Kijakazi, identified in the caption as the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment states that the court’s action was based on a stipulation and order dated July 27, 2023. The available judgment does not describe the administrative decision being challenged or the parties’ specific arguments.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be “reversed and remanded” to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-four remand sends the case back to the Social Security agency for further administrative proceedings. The judgment specifies that those proceedings include a new hearing and a new decision. It also states that the Appeals Council will remand the case to an administrative law judge.
Effect
The judgment does not identify the underlying legal or factual error, and it does not state what result the new administrative proceedings must reach. The case was returned to the Social Security agency for further proceedings rather than resolved by the judgment on the merits of Thompson’s entitlement to benefits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.