Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, Maximus Federal Services, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 30, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-09778
StatusUnknown

This text of Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, Maximus Federal Services, et al. (Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, Maximus Federal Services, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, Maximus Federal Services, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICHARD CORDERO, Plaintiff, v. 24-CV-09778 (JAV) THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EMBLEMHEALTH, ORDER MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, United States District Judge: On August 6, 2025, the Court issued an Order requiring each party to submit a status letter providing the Court with their respective proposals regarding next steps in this case. ECF No. 60. The Court is in receipt of the parties’ respective letters in response to the Order. ECF Nos. 62-66. Plaintiff seeks leave to engage in discovery. ECF No. 62, ¶ 46. Defendants United States Secretary of Health and Human Services and the other named federal defendants (collectively, the “Government”), writing jointly with Defendant EmblemHealth, opposed discovery and proposed a briefing schedule for motions for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 64. Defendant Maximus Federal Services, Inc., which has a fully briefed motion to dismiss pending before the Court, likewise opposes the request for discovery. ECF No. 63. Review of administrative determinations regarding entitlement to Social Security benefits, including Medicare, is generally based on a “closed administrative record.” Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976); see also Calvary Hosp., Inc. v. Becerra, 762 F. Supp. 3d 360, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2025), objections overruled sub nom. Calvary Hosp., Inc. v. Kennedy, No. 1:23-CV-8479-GHW, 2025 WL 2106156 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2025). Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), “[t]he court may consider only the pleadings and administrative record” and “neither party may put any additional evidence before the district court.” Matthews, 423 U.S. at 263, 270. Accordingly, the request for discovery is denied. On September 26, 2025, EmblemHealth filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 67. That same day, the Government submitted a revised proposed briefing schedule. ECF No. 69. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the Government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings shall be filed no later than October 10, 2025. Plaintiff's oppositions/cross motion to the Government’s and EmblemHealth’s motions shall be filed no later than November 7, 2025. The Government’s and EmblemHealth’s oppositions/replies shall be filed no later than December 5, 2025. Plaintiff's reply papers shall be filed no later than January 9, 2026. The Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 65. Dated: September 30, 2025 New York, New York 4 ee LALA Ue, 1 i □ JEANNETTE A. VARGAS “ United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mathews v. Weber
423 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, Maximus Federal Services, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-cordero-v-the-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-nysd-2025.