20 C.F.R. § 404.1518

If you do not appear at a consultative examination

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

(a) General. If you are applying for benefits and do not have a good reason for failing or refusing to take part in a consultative examination or test which we arrange for you to get information we need to determine your disability or blindness, we may find that you are not disabled or blind. If you are already receiving benefits and do not have a good reason for failing or refusing to take part in a consultative examination or test which we arranged for you, we may determine that your disability or blindness has stopped because of your failure or refusal. Therefore, if you have any reason why you cannot go for the scheduled appointment, you should tell us about this as soon as possible before the examination date. If you have a good reason, we will schedule another examination. We will consider your physical, mental, educational, and linguistic limitations (including any lack of facility with the English language) when determining if you have a good reason for failing to attend a consultative examination.

(b) Examples of good reasons for failure to appear. Some examples of what we consider good reasons for not going to a scheduled examination include—

(1) Illness on the date of the scheduled examination or test;

(2) Not receiving timely notice of the scheduled examination or test, or receiving no notice at all;

(3) Being furnished incorrect or incomplete information, or being given incorrect information about the physician involved or the time or place of the examination or test, or;

(4) Having had death or serious illness occur in your immediate family.

(c) Objections by your medical source(s). If any of your medical sources tell you that you should not take the examination or test, you should tell us at once. In many cases, we may be able to get the information we need in another way. Your medical source(s) may agree to another type of examination for the same purpose.

[45 FR 55584, Aug. 20, 1980, as amended at 59 FR 1635, Jan. 12, 1994; 82 FR 5866, Jan. 18, 2017]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: McClean v. Astrue

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McClean v. Astrue (2009) nyed · cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1518 , 416.918. Nevertheless, under the SSA’s Hearing, Appeals, and Litigation Law Manual (“HALLEX”), the ALJ must include in his decisions “a statement about the effect (if any) of the claimant’s failure or refusal [to attend the consultative examination] on…”

Mazzie TOME, Appellant, v. Richard SCHWEIKER, Secretary, Health & Human Services, Appellee (1984) ca8 · cites it 2× “V 1981), was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) that the Secretary erred in concluding that appellant’s failure to follow a prescribed treatment precluded considering certain symptoms in the disability determination under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1518 (1980). For the reasons…”

Nadine BENSKIN, Appellee, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellant (1987) ca8 “1984), we found such an inability to pay to be justifiable cause for not seeking to treat a condition, but that was in the context of a regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1518 (1980), which barred a claimant from benefits if the disability resulted from a condition that could have been…”

Neumerski v. Califano (1981) paed · cites it 3× “1527 recodified at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1518 , see 45 Fed.Reg. 55587 (August 20, 1980); see Kaminski v.”

Mary Weber v. Patricia Harris, Secretary, Health, Education & Welfare (1981) ca8 “1969); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1518 . The ALJ found that “[t]he medical evidence shows that beginning in February 1978, the claimant’s impairments improved, and the claimant had the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.”

Albert Stratton v. Otis R. Bowen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services o (1987) ca11 “However, the Secretary never took the position that Stratton suffered from a severe medical impairment but was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act due to willful failure to follow prescribed medical treatment in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1518 (1978).…”

Anna J. Cassiday v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981) ca7 “The Secretary points to the following agency regulation ( 20 C.F.R. § 404.1518 (1980)): 6 An individual with a disabling impairment which is amenable to treatment to restore his ability to work shall be deemed to be under a disability if he is undergoing therapy prescribed by…”

Michael L. Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1986) ca6 “at 178 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1518 , which was the then-current section regarding the failure to undertake treatment).”

Orienti v. Astrue (2013) ilnd “20 C.F.R. § 404.1518 . Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by declining to order an additional PFT.”

Vance Young v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary, Health, Education and Welfare (1980) ca6 “20 C.F.R. § 404.1518 (1979) provides as follows: For purposes of entitlement to a period of disability or to disability insurance benefits or to child’s, widow’s or widower’s insurance benefits based on disability, an individual’s impairment must also be expected to result in…”

Hollins v. Massanari (2002) ca6 “) The ALJ then exercised his discretion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1518 to apply a presumption that Hollins was not disabled which, when coupled with his application of completely new standards set forth in the new rulings, resulted in the ludicrous conclusion that Hollins was…”

Guy PEARCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee (1989) ca7 “” This warning was pursuant to a regulation of the Social Security Administration (see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1518 (a), 416.-918(a)) the validity of which Pearce does not challenge.”

Show all 64 citing cases →

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1518(a) — 2 cases

Bennett v. Gardner (1966) lawd

Gatson v. O'Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (2024) txnd

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.