20 C.F.R. § 260.3

Request for reconsideration of initial decision

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Right to file request for reconsideration. Every claimant shall have the right to file a request for reconsideration of an initial decision described in § 260.1(a) or in § 260.2. Provided, however, That:

(1) An individual under age 18 shall not have the right to reconsideration of a finding of incapacity to manage his or her annuity payments, but shall have the right to contest the finding that he or she is, in fact, under age 18;

(2) An individual who has been adjudged legally incompetent shall not have the right to reconsideration of a finding of incapacity to manage his or her annuity payments, but shall have the right to contest the fact of his or her having been adjudged legally incompetent; and

(3) An individual shall not have the right to reconsideration of a denial of his or her application to serve as representative payee on behalf of an annuitant. Such request for reconsideration shall be filed and disposed of in the manner prescribed in this section, except that a request for reconsideration of an initial erroneous payment decision under § 260.1(a)(7) shall be filed and disposed of in the manner prescribed in § 260.4.

(b) Written request for reconsideration. A written request for reconsideration may be filed with any office of the Board within 60 days from the date on which notice of the initial decision is mailed to the claimant. The claimant shall state the basis for the reconsideration request and provide any additional evidence which is available. No hearing will be provided.

(c) Right to further review of initial decision. The right to further review of an initial decision shall be forfeited unless a written request for reconsideration is filed within the time period prescribed in this section or good cause is shown by the claimant for failing to file a timely request for reconsideration.

(d) Timely request for reconsideration. In determining whether the claimant has good cause for failure to file a timely request for reconsideration the bureau director shall consider the circumstances which kept the claimant from filing the request on time and if any action by the Board misled the claimant. Examples of circumstances where good cause may exist include, but are not limited to:

(1) A serious illness which prevented the claimant from contacting the Board in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative or other person;

(2) A death or serious illness in the claimant's immediate family which prevented him or her from filing;

(3) The destruction of important and relevant records;

(4) A failure to be notified of a decision;

(5) An unusual or unavoidable circumstance existed which demonstrates that the claimant would not have known of the need to file timely or which prevented the claimant from filing in a timely manner; or

(6) The claimant thought that his or her representative had requested reconsideration.

(e) Impartial review. The reconsideration of the initial decision shall be conducted by a person who shall not have any interest in the parties or in the outcome of the proceedings, shall not have directly participated in the initial decision which has been requested to be reconsidered and shall not have any other interest in the matter which might prevent a fair and impartial decision.

(f) Timely review. The Board shall make every effort to issue a decision upon reconsideration and send a copy of the decision to the claimant within 60 days of the date that the decision for reconsideration is filed.

(g) Right to appeal adverse decision. If the reconsideration decision is adverse to the claimant, annuitant or payee, he or she shall be notifed of his or her right to appeal the decision to the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, as provided in § 260.5.

[47 FR 36809, Aug. 24, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 51448, Nov. 9, 1983; 55 FR 39146, Sept. 25, 1990; 67 FR 77153, Dec. 17, 2002]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2022 · leading case: Salinas v. Railroad Retirement Bd.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Salinas v. Railroad Retirement Bd. (2021) scotus “See 20 CFR §260.3 (c). Salinas did not appeal.”

Anthony P. Abbruzzese v. Railroad Retirement Board (1995) ca10 · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 260.3 (b), (c) and (d) (1995).”

Clinton T. Frock and Charles L. Stribling v. United States Railroad Retirement Board (1982) ca7 “20 C.F.R. § 260.3 (c) (1977). These regulations continue in effect today.”

Cleto Rivera, Jr. v. Railroad Retirement Board (2001) ca9 “20 C.F.R. § 260.3 (a)-(b). Second, if the Director affirms his initial decision, then the claimant has sixty days to file an appeal with the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals.”

Frank C. Gutierrez v. Railroad Retirement Board (1990) ca6 “Ill In his petition for review, Gutierrez contends that he has demonstrated good cause for filing an untimely appeal, specifically alleged errors committed by Board personnel, and that his appeal to the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals thus should be reinstated.”

Clifford v. United States Railroad Retirement Board (1993) ca1 “2 The Board refused because the failure to *538 appeal was not justified by good cause, and in any event the amount of the award was correct.”

Florentino Leal v. J.A. Szoeke (1990) ca5 “or within such further time as the Board may allow, in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the claimant .”

Mrs. Almena Willet Matthews v. Railroad Retirement Board (1973) ca5 “Since Almena had only shown that Charlie had never obtained a divorce in the Parishes of West Feliciana and East Baton Rouge, the two parishes where he was known to have been domiciled, the Board found that she had failed to prove that Charlie did not obtain a divorce in one of…”

Anderson v. Rail Road Retirement Brd (2022) akd “9 (final appeal from a decision of the hearings officer). See also R.”

— 20 C.F.R. § 260.3(d) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.