20 C.F.R. § 404.956

Removal of a hearing request(s) to the Appeals Council

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

(a) Removal. The Appeals Council may assume responsibility for a hearing request(s) pending at the hearing level of the administrative review process.

(b) Notice. We will mail a notice to all parties at their last known address telling them that the Appeals Council has assumed responsibility for the case(s).

(c) Procedures applied. If the Appeals Council assumes responsibility for a hearing request(s), it shall conduct all proceedings in accordance with the rules set forth in §§ 404.929 through 404.961, as applicable.

(d) Appeals Council review. If the Appeals Council assumes responsibility for your hearing request under this section and you or any other party is dissatisfied with the hearing decision or with the dismissal of a hearing request, you may request that the Appeals Council review that action following the procedures in §§ 404.967 through 404.982. The Appeals Council may also decide on its own motion to review the action that was taken in your case under § 404.969. The administrative appeals judge who conducted a hearing, issued a hearing decision in your case, or dismissed your hearing request will not participate in any action associated with your request for Appeals Council review of that case.

(e) Ancillary provisions. For the purposes of the procedures authorized by this section, the regulations of part 404 shall apply to authorize a member of the Appeals Council to exercise the functions performed by an administrative law judge under subpart J of part 404.

[85 FR 73157, Nov. 16, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1965–1990 · leading case: Luther D. Mullen v. Otis Bowen, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Richard G. Shepherd v. Otis Bowen, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Luther D. Mullen v. Otis Bowen, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Richard G. Shepherd v. Otis Bowen, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 404.956 . The Secretary’s regulations further provide that the Appeals Council will review a case if an AU commits an abuse of discretion, there is an error of law, the findings of the AU are not supported by substantial evidence, or there is an important policy…”

Gertie Wilson v. Joseph A. Califano, Sec'y, H.E.W., 580 F.2d 208 (6th Cir. 1978). “Cohen, supra, the claimant had failed to seek administrative reconsideration of the initial decisions denying his earlier claims for benefits, and had not sought to reopen the earlier decisions for error or other good cause shown within the four year period allowed by 20 C.F.R.…”

Allen Sheppard v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Sec'y of the Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 906 F.2d 756 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “20 CFR § 404.956 (b) (1961). Sheppard argues that if the reopening regulations, which permit reopening “for any reason” within 12 months of an initial determination, see § 404.”

Thelma H. Lauritzen v. Caspar Weinberger, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 514 F.2d 561 (8th Cir. 1975). “The Council also stated that the October 22, 1965, determination was final and binding and not subject to reopening under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.956 or 404.957(c). The District Court, on review, recognized the right to reopen pursuant to § 404.”

Rose Mary Roark v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 564 F.2d 14 (8th Cir. 1977). “*15 20 C.F.R. § 404.956 -.958. He also found that the appellant had not been disabled between October 25, 1972, the date of the earlier decision, and June 1, 1973.”

Gerstein v. Bowen, 680 F. Supp. 1200 (N.D. Ill. 1988). “See 20 C.F.R. § 404.956 (b) (I960); 25 Fed.Reg.”

Lillian Lasch v. Elliot Richardson, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare of the United States of Am., 457 F.2d 435 (7th Cir. 1972). “The interpretation of the Appeals Council and district court, therefore, plaintiff contends, neglects “the uniformity” of subject matter in 20 C.F.R. 404.956, 404.957 and 404.958 as well — in all of which the term “time period” is used instead of “time limitation.”

Mercer v. Birchman, 510 F. Supp. 99 (D. Conn. 1981). “§ 405 (g) or to Section 1869(b) of the Social Security Act or unless the decision is revised pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.956 . In this instance the Appeals Council accepted both Mrs.”

Mines v. Bowen, 715 F. Supp. 293 (C.D. Cal. 1989). “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.956 , 404.957 (1978). The legislative history to the 1980 revision of the regulations states that “no substantive changes have been made,” although “several provisions have been clarified.”

Gross v. Celebrezze, 246 F. Supp. 66 (N.D. Ind. 1965). “20 C.F.R. 404.956. Good cause shall be deemed to exist where new and material evidence is furnished.”

Bocian v. Mathews, 411 F. Supp. 1200 (N.D. Iowa 1976). “20 CFR §§ 404.956 & 404.-957. The former section provides in part: Revision for error or other reason; time limitation generally.”

Freeman v. Cohen, 292 F. Supp. 319 (D.S.C. 1968). “(20 CFR 404.956 and 404.957). In this instance plaintiff failed to appeal the original decision and no good cause was found to reopen that decision after plaintiff filed his second application.”

Show all 13 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.