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, 402 U.S. 389 (1971).
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (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, 533 F.3d 658 (8th Cir. 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. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir. 1981). “20 C.F.R. § 404.926 (1980); see Richardson v.”
Bean v. Montana Bd. of Labor Appeals, 1998 MT 222 (Mont. 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, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare v. Pedro Perales, 412 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 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, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 427 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1970). “During the hearing the examiner asked Cross whether he objected to the making of a report by a medical advisor, and Cross neither objected nor requested an opportunity for cross-examination.”
James Ryan v. Lloyd Bentsen, Sec'y of the Treasury, 12 F.3d 245 (D.C. Cir. 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 & as Sec'y of Health, Educ. Andwelfare, 500 F.2d 309 (3rd Cir. 1974). “See also, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.926 and 404.927. 3 . The examiner merely extracted portions of the medical reports which he stated “ .”
Tron v. Prince George's Cnty., 517 A.2d 113 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 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. Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, United States of Am., 497 F.2d 837 (3rd Cir. 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, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 609 F.2d 649 (2d Cir. 1979). “Miller’s report, and, since the hearing judge’s substantial reliance upon the Miller report is clear, due process has been denied. Consequently, we view with some alarm the Secretary’s confident assertion that “it is not uncommon for the ALJ to receive reports subsequent to the…”
Laura Fernandez v. Richard S. Schweiker, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 650 F.2d 5 (2d Cir. 1981). “” He described her prognosis as guarded, and diagnosed her as suffering “Depressive Disorders” (Record 100).”
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.