20 C.F.R. § 403.130

What factors may the Commissioner consider in determining whether SSA will grant your application for testimony?

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

In deciding whether to authorize the testimony of an SSA employee, the Commissioner will consider applicable law and factors relating to your need and the burden to SSA. The considerations include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) Risk of law violation or compromise of Government privilege. (1) Would providing the testimony violate a statute (such as 26 U.S.C. 6103 or section 1106 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1306), Executive Order, or regulation (such as 20 CFR part 401)?

(2) Would providing the testimony put confidential, sensitive, or privileged information at risk?

(b) Burden on SSA. (1) Would granting the application unduly expend for private purposes the resources of the United States (including the time of SSA employees needed for official duties)?

(2) Would the testimony be available in a less burdensome form or from another source?

(3) Would the testimony be limited to the purpose of the request?

(4) Did you previously request the same testimony in the same or a related proceeding?

(c) Interests served by allowing testimony. (1) Would providing the testimony serve SSA's interest?

(2) Would providing the testimony maintain SSA's policy of impartiality among private litigants?

(3) Is another government agency involved in the proceeding?

(4) Do you need the testimony to prevent fraud or similar misconduct?

(5) Would providing the testimony be necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the rights of an accused individual to due process in a criminal proceeding?

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2003–2005 · leading case: Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 216 F.R.D. 681 (S.D. Ala. 2003).
Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 216 F.R.D. 681 (S.D. Ala. 2003). · cites it 6× “See 20 C.F.R. § 403.130 . Based on your written request, the criteria for employee testimony are not met in this case.”
Reeves v. Barnhart, 125 F. App'x 120 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “In addition, SSA had found that Reeves violated SSA’s code of conduct and suspended Reeves from practicing as a SSA representative. As a result, it was inconsistent, and not in SSA’s interest, to pursue Reeves’ disqualification to represent clients before the SSA and also allow…”
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.