Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 1, 2023

Washington v. Kijakazi

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:23-cv-03765
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Washington v. Kijakazi, Judge Netburn reversed and remanded the Social Security case for further proceedings.

Who this affects

Betty Washington, acting for B.K.A.F., and the Social Security Administration, which must conduct further proceedings including an opportunity for a new hearing and issue a new decision.

What happened

In Washington v. Kijakazi, Betty Washington, acting for B.K.A.F., challenged a Social Security decision involving the Commissioner of Social Security.

The court reversed the action and sent it back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, including a new hearing and a new decision. The judgment states that this was based on a July 31, 2023 stipulation and order.

Judge Netburn’s court entered the judgment on August 1, 2023, under sentence four of the federal Social Security judicial-review statute. The judgment does not explain the underlying error.

The detailed version

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

Case
Washington v. Kijakazi · No. 1:23-cv-03765
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
Aug. 1, 2023

Background

The case was brought by Betty Washington, identified in the caption as acting for B.K.A.F., against Kilolo Kijakazi, the Commissioner of Social Security. The opinion text consists of a judgment and refers to a stipulation and order dated July 31, 2023.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-four remand sends the case back for further administrative proceedings. The judgment specifies that those proceedings include the opportunity for a new hearing and issuance of a new decision.

What the Judgment Does Not Explain

The judgment states that the reasons for the remand are contained in the July 31, 2023 stipulation and order, but that stipulation and order is not included in the provided opinion text. The provided text therefore does not identify the specific error or dispute underlying the remand.

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.