20 C.F.R. § 404.928
Expedited appeals process request that does not result in agreement
If you do not meet all of the requirements necessary to use the expedited appeals process, we shall tell you that your request to use this process is denied and that your request will be considered as a request for a hearing or Appeals Council review, whichever is appropriate.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1966–1993 · leading case: Garcia v. Califano, 463 F. Supp. 1098 (N.D. Ill. 1979).
Garcia v. Califano, 463 F. Supp. 1098 (N.D. Ill. 1979). “20 C.F.R. § 404.928 . The weight to be attached to such evidence, however, must be considered in light of its deficiencies.”
James Ryan v. Lloyd Bentsen, Sec'y of the Treasury, 12 F.3d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “1400 sets forth a comprehensive explanation of how to proceed after-each stage in the process of applying for benefits, including an explanation of how to use the EAP, the record does not reflect that the Secretary provided Ryan with such an explanation.”
Wilbur J. Cohen, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare v. Pedro Perales, 412 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1969). “20 C.F.R. 404.928 provides, in pertinent part: Evidence may be received at the hearing even though inadmissible under rules of evidence applicable to court procedure * * *.”
Elliott v. Weinberger, 564 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1977). “20 C.F.R. § 404.928 -.929. However, recoupment is not suspended pending the outcome of this de novo hearing.”
Mathilde Rocker, as Wife of Louis P. Rocker, Wage Earner v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Sec'y of the Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 358 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966). “* * *' 20 C.F.R. 404.928 10 See, generally, II Davis, Administrative Law 14.”
Coates v. Califano, 474 F. Supp. 812 (D. Colo. 1979). “While applicable regulation gives each party to a social security hearing the right to appear and present evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.934 (a), and to examine witnesses, 20 C.”
Ingram v. Gardner, 295 F. Supp. 380 (N.D. Miss. 1969). “) We are, therefore, unimpressed with claimant’s assertion that she was denied a fair hearing or that she was, contrary to statute or to pertinent regulation, wrongly deprived of the subpoena power to compel the attendance of medical witnesses for the purpose of…”
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.