Perez Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-08367
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Perez Rivera v. Commissioner, Judge Netburn reversed and remanded the case for a new hearing and decision.
The plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the Social Security Administration for a new hearing and decision.
What happened
Perez Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security involved a Social Security case in the Southern District of New York. The judgment gives no details about the underlying dispute or the agency’s decision.
The court relied on a February 12, 2024 stipulation and order and reversed and remanded the action to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge must offer the plaintiff a new hearing and issue a new decision.
Judge Sarah Netburn is identified in the case information, while the judgment itself is dated February 13, 2024 and was entered by the clerk. The judgment does not state the reasons for the remand beyond referring to the earlier stipulation and order.
The detailed version
- Perez Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:22-cv-08367
- Sarah Netburn
- Feb. 13, 2024
Background
The opinion is a judgment in a Social Security case. It does not describe the plaintiff’s underlying claims, the Commissioner’s decision, or the specific errors discussed in the parties’ stipulation and order dated February 12, 2024.
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 agency’s action. On remand, the Administrative Law Judge must give the plaintiff an opportunity for a new hearing and issue a new decision.
Disposition
The action was reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. The judgment cites Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993), but provides no further explanation of the reasons for the remand.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.