20 C.F.R. § 404.908
Parties to a reconsideration
(a) Who may request a reconsideration. If you are dissatisfied with the initial determination, you may request that we reconsider it. In addition, a person who shows in writing that his or her rights may be adversely affected by the initial determination may request a reconsideration.
(b) Who are parties to a reconsideration. After a request for the reconsideration, you and any person who shows in writing that his or her rights are adversely affected by the initial determination will be parties to the reconsideration.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1962–2021 · leading case: Maria Parker v. Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare
Maria Parker v. Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare (1981)
“See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.908 , 404.916, and 404.-937a (1980).”
Leo J. Domozik v. Wilbur J. Cohen, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, United States of America (1969)
“In view of appellant’s failure to pursue his administrative remedies following the denial of the earlier applications, the Government contends he may not now relitigate the prior findings, relying on 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.908 and 404.937. The first regulation provides that the…”
Hall v. Sebelius (2009)
“See 20 CFR § 404.908 (a) (“If you are dissatisfied with the initial determination, you may *23 request that we reconsider it.”
Claude Danny Shrader v. Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare (1980)
“20 C.F.R. § 404.908 (1979). Shrader’s failure to seek an evidentiary hearing after the denial of his 1974 claim provided the basis for the administrative ruling that res judi-cata barred the right to a hearing on his 1977 claim.”
Rena Watters v. Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1980)
“Although a decision rendered on a claim at each stage of the administrative process is final and binding upon the parties, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.908 , 404.916, 404.940, 404.”
Martin J. Giacone v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981)
“911 was amended to require that requests for reconsideration be filed within 60 days after the date of the receipt of notice of the initial determination.”
John Easley v. Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1970)
“20 C.F.R. §§ 404.908 , 404.916, 404.937 (a).”
Owen C. Leviner v. Elliott L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1971)
“However, 20 C.F.R. § 404.908 constitutes an initial determination “final and binding on the party or parties” unless it is reconsidered or revised.”
Richard Maddox v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1972)
“No reconsideration of the first three applications was requested, and the Secretary apparently did not regard the unreconsidered denials of the earlier applications as binding, despite the provision of 20 C.F.R. § 404.908 : The initial determination shall be final and binding…”
Gray v. Mathews (1976)
“20 C.F.R. § 404.908 . On April 19, 1965, alleging the same impairment, plaintiff filed a second application which was denied initially on July 26, 1965, and upon reconsideration on December 3, 1965.”
Sawyer Thompson v. Elliott L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare (1971)
“916, or it is revised in accordance with § 404.956.” 1 The first *914 reference (§§ 404.”
Gosnell v. Harris (1981)
“951, to be the administrative equivalent of relief from judgment or order for mistakes, newly discovered evidence or fraud available in federal court under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, plaintiff had an opportunity for meaningful review of his…”
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.