20 C.F.R. § 261.2

Conditions for reopening

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

A final decision may be reopened:

(a) Within 12 months of the date of the notice of such decision, for any reason;

(b) Within four years of the date of the notice of such decision, if there is new and material evidence or there was adjudicative error not consistent with the evidence of record at the time of adjudication; or

(c) At any time if:

(1) The decision was obtained by fraud or similar fault;

(2) Another person files a claim on the same record of compensation and allowance of the claim adversely affects the first claim;

(3) A person previously determined to be dead on whose earnings record a survivor annuity is based is found to be alive;

(4) A claim was denied because of the absence of proof of death of the employee, and the death is later established:

(i) By reason of an unexplained absence from his or her residence for a period of 7 years; or

(ii) By location or identification of his or her body;

(5) The Social Security Administration has awarded duplicate benefits on the same record of compensation;

(6) The decision was that the claimant did not have an insured status, and compensation has been credited to the employee's record of compensation in accordance with part 211 of this chapter:

(i) To enter items transferred by the Social Security Administration which were credited under the Social Security Act when they should have been credited to the employee's railroad retirement compensation record; or

(ii) To correct an error made in the allocation of earnings to an individual which, if properly allocated, would have given him or her an insured status at the time of the decision and the evidence of these earnings was in the possession of the Railroad Retirement Board or the Social Security Administration at the time of the decision;

(7) The decision is wholly or partially unfavorable to a party, but only to correct clerical error or an error that appears on the face of the evidence that was considered when the determination or decision was made;

(8) The decision found the claimant entitled to an annuity or to a lump sum payment based on the earnings record of a deceased person, and it is later established that:

(i) The claimant was convicted of a felony or an act in the nature of a felony for intentionally causing that person's death; or

(ii) If the claimant was subject to the juvenile justice system, he or she was found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have intentionally caused that person's death by committing an act which, if committed by an adult, would have been considered a felony or an act in the nature of a felony;

(9) The claimant shows that it is to his or her advantage to select a later annuity beginning date and refunds, by cash payment or setoff, past payments applying to the period prior to the later beginning date, subject, however, to the provisions of subpart D of part 217 and § 218.9 of this chapter;

(10) The decision is incorrect because of a failure to apply a reduction, or the proper reduction, to the tier I component of an annuity, but the Board shall apply the reduction only for the months following the month the Board first takes corrective action.

(d) Revision of the amount or payment of a separation allowance lump sum amount pursuant to section 6(e) of the Railroad Retirement Act is limited to 60 days from the date of notification of the award of the separation allowance lump sum payment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: Salinas v. Railroad Retirement Bd.
Salinas v. Railroad Retirement Bd. (2021) scotus · cites it 2× “20 CFR §261.2 (b). Salinas sought review with the Fifth Circuit, but the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that federal courts cannot review the Board’s refusal to reopen a prior benefits determination.”
Stovic v. Railroad Retirement Board (2016) cadc “20 C.F.R. § 261.2 (c). Because Stovic was asking the Board to reopen his case rather than challenging an initial benefits determination directly, Stovic had to present evidence establishing that one of those 10 reopener conditions was satisfied.”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Railroad Retirement Board (2007) ca7 “In his brief, Potts also points to 20 C.F.R. § 261.2 (a) and § 261.2(b) as possible authority for the Board’s decision reopening his case.”
Gorbach v. Reno (1999) ca9 “[the decision] was obtained by fraud or similar fault”); 20 C.F.R. § 261.2 (c) (1998) (Railroad Retirement Board regulation) (same); 26 C.”
Manfredo Salinas v. RRRB (2019) ca5 “See 20 C.F.R. § 261.2 . Salinas now petitions this court to review the Board’s decision not to reopen his 2006 application.”
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.