Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-08586
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Smith v. Kijakazi, Judge Netburn ordered a sentence-four remand, reversing the Social Security decision for further proceedings.
Cordel Stephen Smith and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the Social Security Administration for a new hearing and decision.
What happened
In Smith v. Kijakazi, Cordel Stephen Smith challenged a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment refers to a September 12, 2023 stipulation and order, but does not describe the underlying dispute or the reasons for that agreement.
The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and sent the matter back for further administrative proceedings. The Appeals Council must return the case to an Administrative Law Judge, who must offer Smith a new hearing and issue a new decision.
Judge Netburn’s court entered judgment on September 13, 2023, under sentence four of the Social Security law. The judgment does not state the specific error that led to the reversal.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:22-cv-08586
- Sarah Netburn
- Sept. 13, 2023
Background
Cordel Stephen Smith brought this action against Kilolo Kijakazi, identified in the judgment as the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment states that the court’s ruling was based on a Stipulation and Order dated September 12, 2023. The provided text does not describe the Commissioner’s underlying decision, Smith’s arguments, or the specific reasons for the parties’ stipulation.
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 to the agency after the court reverses the Commissioner’s decision. The judgment states that the Appeals Council will remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for further administrative proceedings, including offering Smith an opportunity for a new hearing and issuing a new decision.
The judgment expressly states that the Commissioner’s decision was reversed and that the action was remanded for further administrative proceedings. It does not specify what issue the new proceedings must address beyond the new hearing and decision.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.