20 C.F.R. § 404.944

Administrative law judge hearing procedures—general

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

A hearing is open to the parties and to other persons the administrative law judge considers necessary and proper. At the hearing, the administrative law judge looks fully into the issues, questions you and the other witnesses, and, subject to the provisions of § 404.935, accepts as evidence any documents that are material to the issues; may stop the hearing temporarily and continue it at a later date if the administrative law judge finds that there is material evidence missing at the hearing or one or more variables outside of our control, such as audio quality or video quality, materially affects the hearing; and may reopen the hearing at any time before the administrative law judge mails a notice of the decision in order to receive new and material evidence. For purposes of this section, materially affects means prevents the hearing from proceeding. The administrative law judge may decide when the evidence will be presented and when the issues will be discussed.

[89 FR 68362, Aug. 26, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 89 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Heckler v. Campbell

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Heckler v. Campbell (1983) scotus · cites it 12× “Campbell contends that such a showing informs claimants of the type of issues to be established at the hearing and is required by both the Secretary regulation, 20 CFR § 404.944 (1982), and the Due Process Clause.”

Andrew Cirko v. Commissioner Social Security (2020) ca3 “And like Appeals Council hearings, ALJ hearings are inquisitorial and driven by the agency rather than the claimant: Whereas ALJs must “look[] fully into the issues,” “[a]ccept[] as evidence any documents that are material to the issues,” and “decide when the evidence will be…”

McClesky v. Astrue (2010) ca7 · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.944 . The Social Security Administration suggests to applicants for disability benefits that “after an administrative law judge hearing .”

James Barrett v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Cmsnr (2018) ca5 “…url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=20%20C.F.R.%20%C2%A7%C2%A7%20404.944"> 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.944 , 416.1444. They operate under a "duty of inquiry"-they cannot leave it to the claimant and his representative to thoroughly probe witness testimony, but must do so…”

Miguel Arevalo-Quintero v. Merrick Garland (2021) ca4 “material to the issues,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.944 , immigration judges have a similar obligation to “receive evidence[] and interrogate, examine, and cross- examine the [noncitizen] and any witnesses,” 8 U.”

Hawkins v. Chater (1997) ca10 “1993); 20 C.F.R. § 404.944 (requiring the ALJ to “look[] fully into the issues”); see also Heckler v.”

Tony L. Madrid v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (2006) ca10 “1993)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.944 (requiring the ALJ to “look[] folly into the issues”).”

Lisa Probst v. Andrew Saul (2020) ca4 “…a non-adversarial fashion. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.944 , 416.1400(b). That automatically makes the argument for exhaustion “much weaker.” Sims, <a href="/opinion/1087669/sims-v-apfel/#110" aria-description="Citation for”

Muhammad v. Berryhill (2019) paed “…index="166" url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=20%20C.F.R.%20%C2%A7%20404.944"> 20 C.F.R. § 404.944 . This distinction renders hearings before SSA ALJs as "inquisitorial rather than adversarial." Sims , <span class”

Essie D. COOK, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee (1986) ca4 “Thus, his failure to ask further questions and to demand the production of further evidence, as permitted by 20 C.F.R. § 404.944 , *1174 amounted to neglect of his duty to develop the evidence.”

Valere Poulin v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services (1987) cadc “20 C.F.R. § 404.944 (1986). The present regulation is a "plain English” revision of the regulation addressed in prior decisions in this circuit, see note 45 infra, but was not designed to make any substantive changes.”

Rose E. Brown v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (1986) cadc “20 C.F.R. § 404.944 (1983); see Narrol, 727 F.”

Show all 89 citing cases →

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.