20 C.F.R. § 404.924

When the expedited appeals process may be used

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

You may use the expedited appeals process if all of the following requirements are met:

(a) We have made an initial and a reconsidered determination; an administrative law judge has made a hearing decision; or Appeals Council review has been requested, but a final decision has not been issued.

(b) You are a party to the reconsidered determination or the hearing decision.

(d) You have claimed, and we agree, that the only factor preventing a favorable determination or decision is a provision in the law that you believe is unconstitutional.

(e) If you are not the only party, all parties to the determination or decision agree to request the expedited appeals process.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1962–2023 · leading case: Bradshaw v. Berryhill

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bradshaw v. Berryhill (2019) nced · cites it 3× “" 20 C.F.R. § 404.924 (d). Ignoring the language making the expedited appeals procedure optional, the regulation still would not require Bradshaw to raise her Appointments Clause challenge before the ALJ because it does not affect the merits of her claim for benefits.”

Culclasure v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin. (2019) paed “20 C.F.R. § 404.924 (d). Bradshaw , 372 F.”

Page v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (2018) mied “" 6 20 C.F.R. § 404.924 (d). The administrative transcript shows that Plaintiff submitted additional medical evidence for Appeals Council review as late as August 14, 2017 (Tr.”

Diane S. P. v. Berryhill (2019) vaed “20 C.F.R. §§ 404.924 (d), 416.1424(d) ; see 20 C.”

Adams v. Califano (1979) mdd “See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.924 , 404.947. The Secretary can, of course, change his own regulations or his interpretation of those regulations, but it is clear that any reinterpretation or change will not occur during the course of a disability claim appeal.”

Owen C. Leviner v. Elliott L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1971) ca4 “20 C.F.R. § 404.924 . However, 20 C.F.R. § 404.”

Wander v. Schweiker (1981) mdd “It should also be noted that the ALJ is required to inquire fully into each issue, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.924 (a), 404.927 (1980), and is held to a high standard in discharging this factfinding requirement.”

Adams v. Harris (1981) ca4 “20 CFR §§ 404.924 , 404.934, 416.1434, 416.”

Marks v. United States Social Security Administration (1995) vaed “20 C.F.R. § 404.924 (d) (1995). 5 . Plaintiffs’ claim concerning delay does not seem to constitute a challenge to the SSA's procedure but instead the result of SSA decisions Plaintiffs claim as negligent.”

Sandusky v. Celebrezze (1962) arwd “However, since the 1960 amendment, as stated above, would have made plaintiff eligible for benefits if he could show he had eight quarters of coverage (and he contended he had that many), the hearing examiner, under the authority granted to him by Social Security Regulations, 20…”

Morris Ex Rel. Feth v. Barnhart (2004) ksd “20 C.F.R. § 404.924 (d). 16 . Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.”

Dove-Ridgeway v. Commissioner of Social Security (2020) ded · cites it 2× “67 The regulation referencing a challenge to a “provision in the law that [the claimant] believe[s] is unconstitutional” arises in the expedited appeal process which is optional, and “would not require [a claimant] to raise [his] Appointments Clause challenge before the ALJ…”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.924(d) — 1 case

Furletti v. Commissioner of Social Security (2020) nynd

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.