C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER III—SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION › PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950- ) › Subpart J—Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and Reopening of Determinations and Decisions

20 C.F.R. § 404.967

Appeals Council review—general

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

If 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. The Appeals Council may deny or dismiss the request for review, or it may grant the request and either issue a decision or remand the case to an administrative law judge. The Appeals Council shall notify the parties at their last known address of the action it takes.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 226 cases (79 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987). · cites it 2× “20 CFR §§ 404.967 et seq., 416.1467 et seq.”
Karen Lambert v. Andrew Saul, 980 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2020). “See 20 C.F.R. § 404.967 . Lambert then filed an action in federal court challenging the denial of benefits.”
Jack Bloodsworth v. Margaret M. Heckler, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 404.967 (1982). 1 The dismissal of a request for Appeals Council review is binding and not subject to further administrative review.”
McCall v. PacifiCare of California, Inc., 21 P.3d 1189 (Cal. 2001). · cites it 2× “724 (1983) (incorporating 20 CFR § 404.967 (1983)). If the Appeals Council also denies the claim and if the claim exceeds $1,000, only then may the claimant seek judicial review in federal district court of the `Secretary's final decision.”
Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (1984). · cites it 2× “724 (1983) (incorporating 20 CFR § 404.967 (1983)). If the Appeals Council also denies the claim and if the claim exceeds $1,000, only then may the claimant seek judicial review in federal district court of the "Secretary's final decision.”
Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700 (4th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.967 . When a claimant requests review of an ALJ decision, the Appeals Council “may deny or dismiss the request for review, or it may grant the request and either issue a deoision or remand the case to [the ALJ].”
John Chrupcala v. Margaret M. Heckler, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 829 F.2d 1269 (3rd Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “In Powell the court held that: [W]here a claimant makes timely application pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.967 for review of a limited issue, such as date of onset, the Appeals Council’s obligation, under 20 C.”
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). “20 C.F.R. § 404.967 . In addition, the Secretary’s regulations confer general review powers on the Council, a power commonly called “own-motion” review.”
Wrenn Ex Rel. Wrenn v. Astrue, 525 F.3d 931 (10th Cir. 2008). “; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.967 . A final decision may be reviewed in federal district court.”
Monette v. Colvin, 654 F. App'x 516 (2d Cir. 2016). “The due process argument fails because speed does not indicate inadequate review, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.967 , and Monette’s request for review was expedited because he is a veteran with a service-related impairment.”
George Dietsch v. Richard Schweiker, as Sec'y of the Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 700 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff’s challenge is a procedural one: he seeks to compel the Appeals Council to perform its duty with respect to a timely request for review, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.967 , 404.-981, and either deny the request or review his case.”
Muhammad v. Berryhill, 381 F. Supp. 3d 462 (E.D. Pa. 2019). “Third, the regulations for requesting review by the Appeals Council differ from those governing concerns to be raised with an ALJ, perhaps helping to explain why Sims took care to exempt from its analysis issue exhaustion before ALJs.”
Show all 226 citing cases →
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.967(b) — 6 cases
Archuleta v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Colo. 2020).
Martin v. Kijakazi (S.D. Ind. 2022).
Dunnigan v. Saul (D. Maryland 2021).
Schmardebeck v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (D. Nev. 2021).
Sandoval v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D. Wash. 2023).
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.