20 C.F.R. § 404.927
Effect of expedited appeals process agreement
After an expedited appeals process agreement is signed, you will not need to complete the remaining steps of the administrative review process. Instead, you may file an action in a Federal district court within 60 days after the date you receive notice (a signed copy of the agreement will be mailed to you and will constitute notice) that the agreement has been signed by our authorized representative.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1968–2024 · leading case: Richardson v. Perales
Richardson v. Perales (1971)
“" 20 CFR § 404.927 . From this it is apparent that (a) the Congress granted the Secretary the power by regulation to establish hearing procedures; (b) strict rules of evidence, applicable in the courtroom, are not to operate at social security hearings so as to bar the admission…”
James E. Marsh v. Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare (1980)
“The ALJ is required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.927 (1979) to inquire fully into each issue.”
Raymond F. Diabo, Jr. v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Two Cases (1980)
“” 20 C.F.R. § 404.927 (1979). This duty to probe and explore scrupulously all the relevant facts is particularly strict when the claimant, as here, is not represented by an attorney.”
McCoy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (2018)
“]" 20 C.F.R. § 404.927 (c)(2). A treater's opinion must be given "controlling weight" if "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and .”
Mona D. Ford v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981)
“” 20 C.F.R. § 404.927 (1980). Therefore, in considering a disability claim, the administrative law judge must fully and fairly develop the facts.”
Gerald L. Currier v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1980)
“Due to the non-adversarial nature of disability determination proceedings, however, the Secretary has recognized that she has certain responsibilities with regard to the development of the evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.927 (1979); Miranda, supra, 514 F.”
Ella Mae Cannon v. Patricia Harris, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1981)
“1978); 20 C.F.R. § 404.927 . Especially where the claimant is unassisted by counsel, the AU has a duty to “scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all relevant facts.”
James Decker v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981)
“6 If this is the case, the ALJ may not adequately have performed his “affirmative duty to inquire into all the matters at issue,” see 20 C.F.R. § 404.927 , a duty that is not obviated by the presence of counsel representing the applicant, see, e.”
Minnie Gold v. The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1972)
“20 C.F.R. § 404.927 ; DeGracia v. Secretary, 248 F.”
Ruth H. Sims v. Patricia R. Harris, United States Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1980)
“The Council pointed out that the physician had not supported his findings by clinical and diagnostic studies, and also had not stated why these conditions would prevent claimant from working.”
Ramona Vega v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant (1981)
“receive in evidence the testimony of witnesses and any documents which are relevant and material to such matters,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.927 (1980) (emphasis added).”
James Hess, Jr. v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, United States of America (1974)
“20 C.F.R. § 404.927 (1973), in addressing the duties of the hearing officer, says in part: “ .”
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.