20 C.F.R. § 404.950

Presenting evidence at a hearing before an administrative law judge

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

(a) The right to appear and present evidence. Any party to a hearing has a right to appear before the administrative law judge, in the manner set forth in § 404.936, to present evidence and to state their position. A party may also make their appearance by means of a designated representative, who may make their appearance in the manner set forth in § 404.936.

(b) Waiver of the right to appear. You may send the administrative law judge a waiver or a written statement indicating that you do not wish to appear at the hearing. You may withdraw this waiver any time before a notice of the hearing decision is mailed to you. Even if all of the parties waive their right to appear at a hearing, we may notify them of a time and a place for an oral hearing, if the administrative law judge believes that a personal appearance and testimony by you or any other party is necessary to decide the case.

(c) Admissible evidence. Subject to the provisions of § 404.935, the administrative law judge may receive any evidence at the hearing that he or she believes is material to the issues, even though the evidence would not be admissible in court under the rules of evidence used by the court.

(d) Subpoenas. (1) When it is reasonably necessary for the full presentation of a case, an administrative law judge or a member of the Appeals Council may, on his or her own initiative or at the request of a party, issue subpoenas for the appearance and testimony of witnesses and for the production of books, records, correspondence, papers, or other documents that are material to an issue at the hearing.

(2) Parties to a hearing who wish to subpoena documents or witnesses must file a written request for the issuance of a subpoena with the administrative law judge or at one of our offices at least 10 business days before the hearing date, unless you show that your circumstances meet the conditions described in § 404.935(b). The written request must give the names of the witnesses or documents to be produced; describe the address or location of the witnesses or documents with sufficient detail to find them; state the important facts that the witness or document is expected to prove; and indicate why these facts could not be proven without issuing a subpoena.

(3) We will pay the cost of issuing the subpoena.

(4) We will pay subpoenaed witnesses the same fees and mileage they would receive if they had been subpoenaed by a Federal district court.

(e) Witnesses at a hearing. Witnesses you call may appear at a hearing with you in the same manner in which you are scheduled to appear. If they are unable to appear with you in the same manner as you, they may appear as prescribed in § 404.936(c)(2). Witnesses called by the administrative law judge will appear in the manner prescribed in § 404.936(c)(2). They will testify under oath or affirmation unless the administrative law judge finds an important reason to excuse them from taking an oath or affirmation. The administrative law judge may ask the witness any questions material to the issues and will allow the parties or their designated representatives to do so.

(f) Collateral estoppel—issues previously decided. An issue at your hearing may be a fact that has already been decided in one of our previous determinations or decisions in a claim involving the same parties, but arising under a different title of the Act or under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. If this happens, the administrative law judge will not consider the issue again, but will accept the factual finding made in the previous determination or decision unless there are reasons to believe that it was wrong.

[45 FR 52081, Aug. 5, 1980, as amended at 51 FR 303, Jan. 3, 1986; 68 FR 5219, Feb. 3, 2003; 75 FR 39160, July 8, 2010; 78 FR 29627, May 21, 2013; 81 FR 90993, Dec. 16, 2016; 84 FR 69306, Dec. 18, 2019; 89 FR 68362, Aug. 26, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 180 cases (67 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: Michelle Ford v. Andrew Saul

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Michelle Ford v. Andrew Saul (2020) ca9 · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 404.950 (d)(2) (2013).11 Here, Ford made her request for a subpoena a week after the hearing.”

Joseph Krell v. Andrew M. Saul (2019) ca7 · cites it 3× “" See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.950 (d) (describing how to obtain a subpoena).”

Passmore v. Astrue (2008) ca8 · cites it 5× “20 C.F.R. §§ 404.950 (d)(1), 416.1450(d)(1) (emphasis added).”

Burnette YANCEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee (1998) ca2 · cites it 5× “The magistrate judge found that because the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ did not abuse his discretion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.950 (d)(1) when he denied Yancey’s request to subpoena Dr.”

Jana M. Bayliss v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2005) ca9 “§ 405 (b)(1); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.950 (c), 416.1450(c) ("The administrative law judge may receive evidence at the hearing even though the evidence would not be admissible in court under the rules of evidence used by the court.”

James Barrett v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Cmsnr (2018) ca5 · cites it 2× “" 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.950 (d)(1), 416.1450(d)(1).”

Purdy v. Berryhill (2018) ca1 “Admissibility of evidence before an ALJ presiding over Social Security proceedings is not subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence, and an ALJ is given express authority to assess the reliability of evidence offered. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (b)(1) ("Evidence may be received at any…”

Andrew Cirko v. Commissioner Social Security (2020) ca3 “And while the ALJ plays a starring role— authorized even to subpoena witnesses of their own accord, 12 20 C.F.R. § 404.950 (d)—the claimant may choose to play a bit part and still have his claim determined.”

Bandimere v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission (2016) ca10 · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.950 . Like SEC ALJs, though, SSA ALJs cannot enforce or seek enforcement of a subpoena; the SSA itself would have to get an order from a federal district court to compel compliance.”

James R. Butera v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security (1999) ca7 · cites it 3× “The Commissioner responds that the ALJ properly denied Butera’s subpoena requests because Butera failed to satisfy the regulatory requirements that he demonstrate that the subpoenas were “reasonably necessary to the full presentation of the case” or that the physicians would…”

Clifford FLATFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee (1996) ca6 · cites it 4× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.950 provides in pertinent part: (d) Subpoenas (1) When it is reasonably necessary for the full presentation of a case, an administrative law judge or a member of the Appeals Council may, on his or her own initiative or at the request of a party, issue subpoenas…”

Delker v. Commissioner of Social Security (2009) flmd · cites it 2× “2008); 20 CFR § 404.950 (e)). 8 Claimant asserts that the ALJ violated her due process rights for three reasons.”

Show all 180 citing cases →

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.950(c) — 1 case

Brown v. Bowen (1987) cand

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.950(d) — 2 cases

Lopez v. Chater (1998) prd

Clifford FLATFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee (1996) ca6 “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.950 provides in pertinent part: (d) Subpoenas (1) When it is reasonably necessary for the full presentation of a case, an administrative law judge or a member of the Appeals Council may, on his or her own initiative or at the request of a party, issue subpoenas…”

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.950(d)(1) — 5 cases

Michelle Ford v. Andrew Saul (2020) ca9 “20 C.F.R. § 404.950 (d)(2) (2013).11 Here, Ford made her request for a subpoena a week after the hearing.”

Feliciano v. Chater (1995) prd

Dallas v. Commissioner of Social Security (2023) nynd

POWELL v. BERRYHILL (2020) pawd

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.950(d)(2) — 1 case

White v. Saul (2022) ilnd

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.950(e) — 2 cases

Delker v. Commissioner of Social Security (2009) flmd “2008); 20 CFR § 404.950 (e)). 8 Claimant asserts that the ALJ violated her due process rights for three reasons.”

Miley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (2022) flsd

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.950(f) — 1 case

WHITZELL v. Astrue (2008) mad

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.