(a) Notwithstanding any other provision in this part or part 422 of this chapter, we are establishing the procedures set out in this section to ensure the safety of the public and our employees in our hearing process.
(b)(1) At the request of any hearing office employee, the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will determine, after consultation with the presiding administrative law judge, whether a claimant or other individual poses a reasonable threat to the safety of our employees or other participants in the hearing. The Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will find that a claimant or other individual poses a threat to the safety of our employees or other participants in the hearing when he or she determines that the individual has made a threat and there is a reasonable likelihood that the claimant or other individual could act on the threat or when evidence suggests that a claimant or other individual poses a threat. In making a finding under this paragraph, the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will consider all relevant evidence, including any information we have in the claimant's record and any information we have regarding the claimant's or other individual's past conduct.
(2) If the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge determines that the claimant or other individual poses a reasonable threat to the safety of our employees or other participants in the hearing, the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will either:
(i) Require the presence of a security guard at the hearing; or
(ii) Require that the hearing be conducted by audio, notwithstanding any objection to appearing by audio, or, if the claimant agrees, by online video.
(c) If we have banned a claimant from any of our facilities, we will provide the claimant with the opportunity for a hearing that will be conducted by audio, notwithstanding any objection to appearing by audio, or, if the claimant agrees, by online video.
(d) The actions of the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge taken under this section are final and not subject to further review.
(e) For audio appearances under this section, we will call you or any other party to the hearing using your or their telephone number(s).
[76 FR 13508, Mar. 14, 2011, as amended at 77 FR 10658, Feb. 23, 2012; 89 FR 68361, Aug. 26, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977).
· cites it 2× “The Administrative Law *103 Judge viewed the new application as barred by res judicata, see 20 CFR § 404.937 (1976), but also treated the application as requiring the determination "whether the claimant is entitled to have his prior application reopened .”
Osmund McGowen v. Patricia R. Harris, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 666 F.2d 60 (4th Cir. 1981).
· cites it 2× “957 (c)(1) (1981) (superseding 20 C.F.R. § 404.937 (a) (1980)). Whether it is the same claim must necessarily be determined according to general principles of res judicata respecting the scope of a claim for purposes of merger and bar as adapted to the social security claim…”
Maria Parker v. Joseph A. Califano, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 644 F.2d 1199 (6th Cir. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Any determination that becomes final for failure to proceed to the next level of consideration may operate to bar future consideration of the claim, 20 C.F.R. § 404.937 (a) (1980), although some procedures are available to mitigate the effect of this rule.”
Wyatt v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 974 F.2d 680 (6th Cir. 1992).
“Plaintiff then filed the present applications for benefits on January 4, 1989 alleging the later onset date of November 30, 1987.”
Dealy v. Heckler, 616 F. Supp. 880 (W.D. Mo. 1984).
· cites it 2× “With respect to the plaintiffs claim that res judicata should not be applied in this case, the Court notes that the Eighth Circuit has twice stated that “the Secretary’s solicitation of a new application, in our view, constitutes [a Social Security Administration] promise that…”
Gertie Wilson v. Joseph A. Califano, Sec'y, H.E.W., 580 F.2d 208 (6th Cir. 1978).
· cites it 2× “This Court has held that the Secretary may apply the doctrine of res judica *211 ta pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.937 (a) 3 to deny consideration of a claim for benefits which raises issues and presents facts previously considered by the Secretary in relation to a prior claim for…”
Richard Maddox v. Elliot L. Richardson, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 464 F.2d 617 (6th Cir. 1972).
· cites it 3× “4 (20 CFR 404.937) provides as follows: “The hearing examiner may, on his own motion, dismiss a hearing request, either entirely or as to any stated issue, under any of the following circumstances: (a) ‘Res Judicata — Where there has been a previous determination or decision by…”
Matilde Matos v. Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 581 F.2d 282 (1st Cir. 1978).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 404.937 (a). 4 . Appellant contends that the statute of limitations period for reopening a claim should not apply to her because of her mental disability, a question left open in Torres v.”
Roby L. Teague v. Joseph A. Califano, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 560 F.2d 615 (4th Cir. 1977).
“The agency correctly held that its earlier decision was res judicata, 20 C.F.R. § 404.937 (a) (1976), and the district court correctly held that it had no jurisdiction to review the agency’s consequent denial of reconsideration: “If a claimant has no right to judicial review of…”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.937(a) — 9 cases
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.937(b) — 1 case
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.