20 C.F.R. § 404.926
Agreement in expedited appeals process
If you meet all the requirements necessary for the use of the expedited appeals process, our authorized representative shall prepare an agreement. The agreement must be signed by you, by every other party to the determination or decision and by our authorized representative. The agreement must provide that—
(a) The facts in your claim are not in dispute;
(b) The sole issue in dispute is whether a provision of the Act that applies to your case is unconstitutional;
(c) Except for your belief that a provision of the Act is unconstitutional, you agree with our interpretation of the law;
(d) If the provision of the Act that you believe is unconstitutional were not applied to your case, your claim would be allowed; and
(e) Our determination or the decision is final for the purpose of seeking judicial review.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2021 · leading case: Richardson v. Perales
Richardson v. Perales (1971)
“§ 405 (a), provide that a claimant may request the issuance of subpoenas, 20 CFR § 404.926 . Perales, however, who was represented by counsel, did not request subpoenas for either of the two hearings.”
Passmore v. Astrue (2008)
“The Court, however, did clarify that “[although the claimant complains of the lack of opportunity to cross-examine the reporting physicians, he did not take advantage of the opportunity afforded him under 20 C.F.R. § 404.926 to request subpoenas for the physicians.”
Maria S. Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981)
“20 C.F.R. § 404.926 (1980); see Richardson v.”
Bean v. Montana Board of Labor Appeals (1998)
“The United States Supreme Court held that the claimant was not deprived of his right to confrontation and cross-examination in part because the claimant did not exercise his right to subpoena these physicians under 20 CFR § 404.926 , and, thereby, provide himself with the…”
Wilbur J. Cohen, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare v. Pedro Perales (1969)
“Also, it must be noted that in accordance with the statute quoted above, the Secretary has promulgated the following rules and regulations with respect to evidence and procedures to be followed in hearing before him: 20 C.F.R. 404.926 provides, in pertinent part: When reasonably…”
William T. Cross v. Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1970)
“Since Cross had the right under the Secretary’s regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.926 (1969), to request that the doctor be subpoenaed, but failed to make such a request, he cannot complain at this stage that he was denied the right to cross-examine the doctor.”
James Ryan v. Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury (1993)
“See 20 C.F.R. § 404.926 . These are matters a claimant would ordinarily be required to establish before invoking the futility doctrine in district court.”
Jose E. Baerga v. Elliot Richardson, Individually and as Secretary of Health, Education Andwelfare (1974)
“See also, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.926 and 404.927. 3 .”
Tron v. Prince George's County (1986)
“See 20 C.F.R. § 404.926 . The Court, in essence, declared that a claimant cannot be heard to complain about a lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses when the claimant has the power to subpoena the witnesses and fails to do so.”
James Hess, Jr. v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, United States of America (1974)
“” 20 C.F.R. § 404.926 (1973) says in part: “When reasonably necessary for the full presentation of a case, an Administrative Law Judge .”
Josephine Gullo v. Joseph Califano, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1979)
“1976); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.926 . The procedures utilized in the case at bar denied the claimant any opportunity to rebut Dr.”
Laura Fernandez v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981)
“A hearing examiner is entitled, under normal circumstances, to rely on the written medical reports of experts who have examined a claimant; he is not required to call reporting physicians to testify where the claimant has failed to exercise her right to subpoena them under 20…”
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.