Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 1, 2024

Suriel v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:23-cv-08143
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Suriel v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Cave reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings and a new decision.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, Helgajeovankasuriel, and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was returned to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings and a new decision.

What happened

In Suriel v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court entered judgment in favor of further review of the Commissioner’s decision in the plaintiff’s Social Security case.

The judgment says the court acted for the reasons stated in a February 1, 2024 stipulation and order. The judgment itself does not describe the underlying dispute or explain why the Commissioner’s decision was reversed.

The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the action to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings and a new decision. Judge Sarah Cave is identified as the judge for this case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Suriel v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:23-cv-08143
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
Feb. 1, 2024

Ruling

The court reversed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision and remanded the action to the Commissioner under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A remand sends the case back to the agency for additional proceedings. The court ordered further administrative proceedings and a new decision.

Basis and limits of the judgment

The judgment states that the ruling was made for the reasons given in the court’s stipulation and order dated February 1, 2024. The provided judgment does not state what error led to the reversal or describe the parties’ underlying arguments. It cites Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).

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.