C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER III—SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION › PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950- ) › Subpart G—Filing of Applications and Other Forms

20 C.F.R. § 404.620

Filing before the first month you meet the requirements for benefits

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

(a) General rule. If you file an application for benefits before the first month you meet all the other requirements for entitlement, the application will remain in effect until we make a final determination on your application unless there is an administrative law judge hearing decision on your application. If there is an administrative law judge hearing decision, your application will remain in effect until the administrative law judge hearing decision is issued.

(1) If you meet all the requirements for entitlement while your application is in effect, we may pay you benefits from the first month that you meet all the requirements.

(2) If you first meet all the requirements for entitlement after the period for which your application was in effect, you must file a new application for benefits. In this case, we may pay you benefits only from the first month that you meet all the requirements based on the new application.

(b) [Reserved]

[44 FR 37209, June 26, 1979, as amended at 52 FR 4003, Feb. 9, 1987; 83 FR 21709, May 10, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Krauser v. Astrue
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Krauser v. Astrue (2011) ca10 “But, as explained below, we remand this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings in light of other error, extending the potential period of disability through the next date of decision, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.620 (a), 416.330 (providing that applications for disability…”
Debra M. Estes v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security, 1 (2002) ca8 “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.620 , 416.330. Estes was hospitalized almost seventeen months later, on August 8, 2000.”
Angela Myers v. Carolyn W. Colvin (2013) ca8 “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.620 (a), 416.330. Thus, after considering how the ALJ would have weighed the new evidence, see Flynn v.”
32 soc.sec.rep.ser. 494, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 15908a Esther Marcus v. Louis v. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Hu (1991) ca7 “See 20 CFR §§ 404.620 , 416.330. The district court vacated prior administrative decisions adverse to the members of the class and ordered re-determinations.”
Crawford v. Barnhart (2008) dcd “20 C.F.R. § 404.620 (setting the ALJ’s decision as the cutoff date to determine eligibility for disability insurance benefits).”
Virgil L. CRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee (1987) ca6 “The provisions of 20 C.F.R. § 404.620 make it clear that if an applicant applies for benefits before he has become disabled or has otherwise met all the requirements for entitlement, but then meets all requirements (including the requirement of disability) before there has been…”
Dixon v. Shalala (1995) ca2 “(citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.620 , 416.330). Where a final administrative determination is deferred by the pendency of a class action, the court concluded, “the plaintiffs’ initial applications remain ‘in effect,’ and each of these plaintiffs must be awarded retroactive benefits for…”
Johnson v. Sullivan (1989) ilnd · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.620 & 416.380, a disability claim under Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act remains in effect until the Secretary makes a final determination or until an administrative law judge renders a decision following a disability hearing.”
Johnson v. Sullivan (1990) ca7 · cites it 2× “Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.620 & 416.330, the class claimants’ initial applications for benefits under Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act remained in effect until they received a final administrative determination or, if there was a hearing on the claim, until the…”
Barrett v. Apfel (1999) mad “Even though the Appeals Council’s declination of review on October 23, 1997, arose well after Plaintiff turned fifty-five, federal regulations make clear that all requirements for entitlement must be met before the administrative law judge’s decision.”
Matos v. Commissioner of Social Security (2015) ca2 “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.620 ; cf. Vargas v. Sullivan, 898 F.”
Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security (2009) mied “20 C.F.R. § 404.620 (setting the ALJ’s decision as the cutoff date to determine eligibility for disability insurance benefits).”
Show all 31 citing cases →
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.