20 C.F.R. § 404.951

Official record

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

(a) Hearing recording. All hearings will be recorded. The hearing recording will be prepared as a typed copy of the proceedings if—

(1) The case is sent to the Appeals Council without a decision or with a recommended decision by the administrative law judge;

(2) You seek judicial review of your case by filing an action in a Federal district court within the stated time period, unless we request the court to remand the case; or

(3) An administrative law judge or the Appeals Council asks for a written record of the proceedings.

(b) Contents of the official record. All evidence upon which the administrative law judge relies for the decision must be contained in the record, either directly or by appropriate reference. The official record will include the applications, written statements, certificates, reports, affidavits, medical records, and other documents that were used in making the decision under review and any additional evidence or written statements that the administrative law judge admits into the record under §§ 404.929 and 404.935. All exhibits introduced as evidence must be marked for identification and incorporated into the record. The official record of your claim will contain all of the marked exhibits and a verbatim recording of all testimony offered at the hearing. It also will include any prior initial determinations or decisions on your claim.

[81 FR 90994, Dec. 16, 2016

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 69 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: Mathews v. Eldridge

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) scotus · cites it 2× “§ 405 (g); 20 CFR § 404.951 (1975). [21] Should it be determined at any point after termination of benefits, that the claimant's disability extended beyond the date of cessation initially established, the worker is entitled to retroactive payments.”

Califano v. Sanders (1977) scotus · cites it 2× “20 CFR § 404.951 (1976). Congress' determination so to limit judicial review to the original decision denying benefits is a policy choice obviously designed to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility claims.”

Daniel P. Cotter v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981) ca3 “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.951 , 404.957 (1980). Cotter then filed suit in district court pursuant to sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Act, 42 U.”

George Dobrowolsky v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary, Health, Education, and Welfare (1979) ca3 “shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial…”

Bettie Jo Cherry v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1985) ca11 “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.951 . Even if this regulation was violated by the failure to preserve the record for future reopening determinations, the violation would not constitutionally flaw the proceedings.”

Robert George Drummond and Mildred Pauline Drummond v. Fulton County Department of Family & Children's Services (1977) ca5 “§ 405 (g); 20 CFR § 404.951 (1975). Should it be determined at any point after termination of benefits, that the claimant’s disability extended beyond the date of cessation initially established, the worker is entitled to retroactive payments.”

Eladio COLON, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellant (1989) ca1 “[A]n interpretation that would allow a claimant judicial review simply by filing —and being denied — a petition to reopen his claim would frustrate the congressional purpose, plainly evidenced in § 205(g), to impose a 60-day limitation upon judicial review of the Secretary’s…”

Gray v. Mathews (1976) cand · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 404.951 . Seeking to secure disability benefits from January 1,1968, plaintiff filed a third application based upon his back trouble on December 17, 1968.”

Matilde Matos v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1978) ca1 “20 C.F.R. § 404.951 (1976). Congress’ determination so to limit judicial review to the original decision denying benefits is a policy choice obviously designed to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility claims.”

Tennille G. Sheehan v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare (1979) ca8 “20 CFR § 404.951 (1976). Congress’ determination so to limit judicial review to the original decision denying benefits is a policy choice obviously designed to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility claims.”

Sally L. WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee (1984) ca10 “20 CFR § 404.951 (1976). Congress’ determination so to limit judicial review to the original decision denying benefits is a policy choice obviously designed to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility claims.”

Edward A. Stauffer v. Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare of the United States (1982) ca3 “20 CFR § 404.951 (1976). Congress’ determination so to limit judicial review to the original decision denying benefits is a policy choice obviously designed to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility claims.”

Show all 69 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.