20 C.F.R. § 404.939
Objections to the issues
If you object to the issues to be decided at the hearing, you must notify the administrative law judge in writing at the earliest possible opportunity, but no later than 5 business days before the date set for the hearing, unless you show that your circumstances meet the conditions described in § 404.935(b). You must state the reason(s) for your objection(s). The administrative law judge will make a decision on your objection(s) either at the hearing or in writing before the hearing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2021 · leading case: Daniel P. Cotter v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services
Daniel P. Cotter v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981)
“20 C.F.R. § 404.939 (1980). We note that in his somewhat abbreviated discussion of the evidence relating to the heart condition, the ALJ makes no mention of any medical findings or opinions supporting Cotter’s claim.”
Lisa Probst v. Andrew Saul (2020)
“3 3 The strongest candidates are 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.939 and 404.940, but they fall short.”
John Davis v. Andrew Saul (2020)
“20 C.F.R. § 404.939 . In Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.”
Culclasure v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin. (2019)
“20 C.F.R. §§ 404.939 ; 416.1439. 20 C.F.R.”
Muhammad v. Berryhill (2019)
“, 20 C.F.R. § 404.939 ; see supra at 473 n.”
Diane S. P. v. Berryhill (2019)
“20 C.F.R. §§ 404.939 , 416.1439. Upon receiving any such objections, the ALJ must address them either in writing before the hearing or at the hearing itself.”
Bradshaw v. Berryhill (2019)
“And given that the issues under consideration are limited to issues decided before the ALJ's involvement, there would be no reason for a claimant to believe that they needed to object to an ALJ's failure to include an Appointments Clause challenge among the issues the ALJ will…”
Pasco v. Commissioner of Social Security (2005)
“20 C.F.R. § 404.939 requires a claimant to express before the hearing any objections she has to issues the ALJ seeks to decide at the hearing.”
Phillips v. Clancy (1986)
“See 20 C.F.R. § 404.939 (1980). A hearing would have been held where evidence was submitted and factual determinations made concerning the scope and nature of Phillips’ disability.”
Jose E. Baerga v. Elliot Richardson, Individually and as Secretary of Health, Education Andwelfare (1974)
“20 C.F.R. § 404.939 . A directive to make findings of fact normally means clear and explicit findings of all facts necessary to support the conclusions reached.”
Probst v. Berryhill (2019)
“Social Security regulations do provide that objections to issues to be decided at the hearing should be identified "at the earliest possible opportunity," 20 C.F.R. § 404.939 . There is also a regulation providing for expedited appeals in certain instances, including a challenge…”
Wilson v. Berryhill (2019)
“, 20 C.F.R. § 404.939 . Despite the Commissioner's reliance on previous Appointments Clause challenges to ALJs as proof that Wilson should have been on notice this was a viable argument, Def.”
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.