20 C.F.R. § 404.905
Effect of an initial determination
An initial determination is binding unless you request a reconsideration within the stated time period, or we revise the initial determination.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986).
Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986). “, 20 CFR §§404.905 , 404.909(a)(1), 416.1405, 416.”
Mildred R. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 765 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1985). “20 C.F.R. § 404.905 . Taylor thus continued to carry the burden of proving disability in her 1981 application because the 1976 findings of non-disability created a presumption of continuing non-disability.”
Grace DRUMMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Comm'r OF Soc. Sec., Defendant-Appellee, 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997). “20 C.F.R. § 404.905 . An initial determination is subject to the doctrine of administrative res judicata.”
Fidencio CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Sec'y of the Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 844 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1988). “See 20 C.F.R. § 404.905 (1986); Taylor v. Heckler, 765 F.”
Casey v. Berryhill, 853 F.3d 322 (7th Cir. 2017). “4 While the fact of Casey’s overpayment is res judicata given that Casey did not request reconsideration of the agency’s initial determination, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.905 , the agency’s knowledge of his income and continued payment of benefits over a period of many years— coupled…”
Simmons v. Astrue, 736 F. Supp. 2d 391 (D.N.H. 2010). “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.905 , 404.987(a). B. Education and Work History Simmons was 42 years old when the ALJ denied her application on June 3, 2009.”
Timothy Ledford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 311 F. App'x 746 (6th Cir. 2008). “See 20 C.F.R. § 404.905 (“An initial determination is binding unless you request a reconsideration within the stated time period, or we revise the initial determination.”
Donald M. Rhinehart v. Robert H. Rinch, Etc. (Wilbur J. Cohen, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare), 438 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1971). “” Although there is a provision made for reinstatement of benefits, 20 C.F.R. § 404.905 (e), such action is to be taken “whenever a party makes a written request for reinstatement or whenever evidence is received which justifies such reinstatement.”
Helen L. RUCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Defendant-Appellee, 92 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 1996). “See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.905 , 404.987-404.989. Rucker also offers specific authority from other circuits for the proposition that the government — as well as a claimant — can be bound by prior adjudications.”
Cefalu v. Barnhart, 387 F. Supp. 2d 486 (W.D. Pa. 2005). “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.905 , 416.1405 (2004). This appeal relates to Cefalu’s application for DIB and SSI filed on March 15, 2000, in which he alleges disability as of March 21, 1993 because of recurrent her-petic keratitis and secondary glaucoma of the right eye as well as…”
Rena Watters v. Patricia R. Harris, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 656 F.2d 234 (7th Cir. 1980). “20 C.F.R. §§ 404.905 — 404.907 (1979). If the claim is administratively denied, regulations permit administrative reconsideration.”
James C. Dugan v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 957 F.2d 1384 (7th Cir. 1992). “First, is the Secretary’s 1983 decision the type of decision that is subject to administrative res judicata in the first place? Second, if it is, has the Secretary met the requirements for reopening such a determination? The regulations promulgated under the Social Security Act…”
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.