Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Nov. 7, 2023

Valdez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:23-cv-02088
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Valdez v. Kijakazi: Judge Netburn reversed and remanded the Social Security action for further administrative proceedings.

Who this affects

Mariberky Valdez and the Social Security Administration, including the Administrative Law Judge who must conduct further proceedings.

What happened

In Mariberky Valdez v. Kilolo Kijakazi, the court entered judgment reversing the action and sending it back to the Social Security Commissioner under a federal law provision called sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The judgment says this was done for the reasons stated in a November 7, 2023, stipulation and order, but those reasons are not included in the provided text.

On remand, the Administrative Law Judge must offer Valdez a new hearing, complete the administrative record, and issue a new decision. The judgment does not state what the new decision must be.

Judge Netburn’s court therefore ordered the case reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.

The detailed version

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

Case
Valdez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:23-cv-02088
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
Nov. 7, 2023

Disposition

The court entered judgment reversing the action and remanding it to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-four remand sends the case back to the agency for additional proceedings and a new decision.

Required Proceedings on Remand

The Administrative Law Judge must offer Mariberky Valdez an opportunity for a new hearing, take action to complete the administrative record, and issue a new decision.

Basis and Scope

The judgment states that the remand was ordered for the reasons given in the court’s stipulation and order dated November 7, 2023. Those reasons are not included in the provided opinion text. The judgment does not determine what the new administrative decision must be.

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.