(a) When you submit your request for hearing, you should also submit information or evidence as required by § 404.1512 or any summary of the evidence to the administrative law judge. Each party must make every effort to ensure that the administrative law judge receives all of the evidence and must inform us about or submit any written evidence, as required in § 404.1512, no later than 5 business days before the date of the scheduled hearing. If you do not comply with this requirement, the administrative law judge may decline to consider or obtain the evidence, unless the circumstances described in paragraph (b) of this section apply.
(b) If you have evidence required under § 404.1512 but you have missed the deadline described in paragraph (a) of this section, the administrative law judge will accept the evidence if he or she has not yet issued a decision and you did not inform us about or submit the evidence before the deadline because:
(1) Our action misled you;
(2) You had a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation(s) that prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier; or
(3) Some other unusual, unexpected, or unavoidable circumstance beyond your control prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier. Examples include, but are not limited to:
(i) You were seriously ill, and your illness prevented you from contacting us in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person;
(ii) There was a death or serious illness in your immediate family;
(iii) Important records were destroyed or damaged by fire or other accidental cause; or
(iv) You actively and diligently sought evidence from a source and the evidence was not received or was received less than 5 business days prior to the hearing.
[81 FR 90993, Dec. 16, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
252
cases (
159 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case:
McClesky v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2010).
McClesky v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2010).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 404.935 . But the judge “may also reopen the hearing at any time before he or she mails a notice of the decision in order to receive new and material evidence.”
Perez v. Chater, 17 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Both plaintiff and the ALJ have a duty to ensure that the record is fully developed.”
Nelma Lois Thorton v. Richard S. Schweiker, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 663 F.2d 1312 (5th Cir. 1981).
“at 840 ; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.935 , 404.950 (1981). We repeat only what we have said before: that due to the nature of administrative hearings under the Social Security Act, the ALJ has a special responsibility to develop a full and fair record upon which to base his decision.”
White v. O'Malley (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2024).
· cites it 22× “DISCUSSION White presents three issues on appeal: (1) the ALJ violated 20 C.F.R. § 404.935 when she excluded material evidence received after the hearing date and a month before her decision; (2) the Appeals Council erred when it denied review despite the additional evidence…”
Smith v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D.N.Y. 2020).
· cites it 12× “” (Docket # 14-1 at 20 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.935 (a), 416.1435(a))). The Commissioner also maintains that Wysocki’s 2017 opinion would not have changed the ALJ’s RFC assessment, thus making any error harmless.”
Bodine v. Berryhill (E.D. Mo. 2020).
· cites it 9× “The Commissioner counters that the ALJ properly excluded the evidence pursuant to SSA regulations and, even if the ALJ erred in applying 20 C.F.R. § 404.935 , “remand is not required, as none of the evidence rejected by the ALJ is probative to Plaintiff’s case.”
Owsley v. Berryhill (E.D. Mo. 2020).
· cites it 8× “The ALJ excluded the records pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.935 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.1435 .”
Reisman v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D.N.Y. 2021).
· cites it 8× “20 C.F.R. § 404.935 (Westlaw 2021). A decision by an ALJ to exclude evidence under this provision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Kay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Ohio 2022).
· cites it 8× “On September 9, 2019, a date that fell 8 business days prior to the scheduled hearing, Plaintiff sent a letter to the ALJ that stated in relevant part: The purpose of this letter is to inform you about evidence in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.935 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.1435 .”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.935(a) — 23 cases
Bodine v. Berryhill (E.D. Mo. 2020).
“The Commissioner counters that the ALJ properly excluded the evidence pursuant to SSA regulations and, even if the ALJ erred in applying 20 C.F.R. § 404.935 , “remand is not required, as none of the evidence rejected by the ALJ is probative to Plaintiff’s case.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.935(b) — 34 cases
Reisman v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D.N.Y. 2021).
“20 C.F.R. § 404.935 (Westlaw 2021). A decision by an ALJ to exclude evidence under this provision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Bodine v. Berryhill (E.D. Mo. 2020).
“The Commissioner counters that the ALJ properly excluded the evidence pursuant to SSA regulations and, even if the ALJ erred in applying 20 C.F.R. § 404.935 , “remand is not required, as none of the evidence rejected by the ALJ is probative to Plaintiff’s case.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.935(b)(3) — 4 cases
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.935(b)(3)(iv) — 1 case
White v. O'Malley (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2024).
“DISCUSSION White presents three issues on appeal: (1) the ALJ violated 20 C.F.R. § 404.935 when she excluded material evidence received after the hearing date and a month before her decision; (2) the Appeals Council erred when it denied review despite the additional evidence…”
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.