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. § 404.970

Cases the Appeals Council will review

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

(a) The Appeals Council will review a case at a party's request or on its own motion if—

(1) There appears to be an abuse of discretion by the administrative law judge or administrative appeals judge who heard the case;

(2) There is an error of law;

(3) The action, findings or conclusions in the hearing decision or dismissal order are not supported by substantial evidence;

(4) There is a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the general public interest; or

(5) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, the Appeals Council receives additional evidence that is new, material, and relates to the period on or before the date of the hearing decision, and there is a reasonable probability that the additional evidence would change the outcome of the decision.

(b) The Appeals Council will only consider additional evidence under paragraph (a)(5) of this section if you show good cause for not informing us about or submitting the evidence as described in § 404.935 because:

(1) Our action misled you;

(2) You had a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation(s) that prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier; or

(3) Some other unusual, unexpected, or unavoidable circumstance beyond your control prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier. Examples include, but are not limited to:

(i) You were seriously ill, and your illness prevented you from contacting us in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person;

(ii) There was a death or serious illness in your immediate family;

(iii) Important records were destroyed or damaged by fire or other accidental cause;

(iv) You actively and diligently sought evidence from a source and the evidence was not received or was received less than 5 business days prior to the hearing; or

(v) You received a hearing level decision on the record and the Appeals Council reviewed your decision.

(c) If you submit additional evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision as required in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, or the Appeals Council does not find you had good cause for missing the deadline to submit the evidence in § 404.935, the Appeals Council will send you a notice that explains why it did not accept the additional evidence and advises you of your right to file a new application. The notice will also advise you that if you file a new application within 6 months after the date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review will constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits under § 404.630. If you file a new application within 6 months of the Appeals Council's notice, we will use the date you requested Appeals Council review as the filing date for your new application.

[81 FR 90994, Dec. 16, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 73157, Nov. 16, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,309 cases (589 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Luther D. Mullen v. Otis Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Richard G. Shepherd v. Otis Bowen, Secretary of
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Luther D. Mullen v. Otis Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Richard G. Shepherd v. Otis Bowen, Secretary of (1986) ca6 · cites it 13× “20 C.F.R. § 404.970 (a). Finally, under the Secretary’s regulations, the decision of the Appeals Council is binding upon the parties unless an action is commenced in a federal district court.”
Wall v. Astrue (2009) ca10 · cites it 6× “" 20 C.F.R. § 404.970 (b). In this case, the ALJ issued his decision in October 2003.”
Joyce Hargress v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner (2018) ca11 · cites it 4× “…url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=20%20C.F.R.%20%C2%A7%C2%A7%20404.970"> 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.970 (b), 416.1470(b) (2016) ; 4 see also Washington v. Soc. Sec. Admin. , <extracted-citation case-ids="4358580" ind”
Brewes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (2012) ca9 · cites it 4× “See 20 C.F.R. § 404.970 (b). 3 Claimants need not show “good cause” before submitting new evidence to the Appeals Council.”
Sharon Bingham Matthews v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security (2001) ca3 · cites it 4× “at 34, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.970 and 416.1470.”
Tyrone White v. Kilolo Kijakazi (2022) ca9 · cites it 4× “…Council if the claimant shows good cause for not having submitted it earlier. 20 C.F.R. § 404.970 (b); see Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., <a href="/opinion/802272/brewes-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration/" aria-description="Citation for case: B”
Threet v. Barnhart (2003) ca10 · cites it 5× “at 11 (citing 20 C.F.R. 404.970). Without analysis, the Council concluded there was “no basis under the above regulations for granting your request for review.”
Peggy Mayes v. Larry G. Massanari, Commissioner of Social Security (2001) ca9 · cites it 2× “In a petition for rehearing, which we deny, Mayes raises *456 for the first time the argument that 20 C.F.R. § 404.970 (b)(2001) requires the Appeals Council to receive new evidence without regard to the issue of good cause.”
Amber Ashley v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2017) ca11 · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. §§ 404.970 (b), 416.1470(b) (2016); see also Washington v.”
Stepp v. Colvin (2015) ca7 · cites it 3× “” Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.970 (b), additional evidence submitted to the Appeals Council will be evaluated only if it is “new and material” 2 and “relates to the period on or before the date of the [ALJ] hearing decision.”
Chambers v. Barnhart (2004) ca10 · cites it 4× “Chambers first submitted on her administrative appeal pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.970 (b), 416.1470(b).”
Fry v. Massanari (2001) alnd · cites it 5× “2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.970 (b). When a claimant takes issue with the adequacy of Appeals Council’s evaluation of new evidence, the district court may properly review the new evidence to see whether it is of a type the Appeals Council should consider.”
Show all 1,309 citing cases →
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(a) — 3 cases
Nelda A. PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee (1985) ca11
Finkel v. Commissioner of Social Security (2020) casd
Petersen v. Saul (2020) utd
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(a)(3) — 1 case
Sofia BERRIOS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee (1986) ca1
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(a)(5) — 29 cases
Plumley v. Saul (2023) ncwd
Foster v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (2020) flmd
Crouch v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of (2023) ksd
Pratt v. Commissioner Social Security Administration (2024) ord
Marshall v. Commissioner of Social Security (2021) flmd
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(a)(5)(b)(3) — 1 case
Evans v. Social Security Administration (2021) nmd
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b) — 41 cases
Threet v. Barnhart (2003) ca10 “at 11 (citing 20 C.F.R. 404.970). Without analysis, the Council concluded there was “no basis under the above regulations for granting your request for review.”
Getch v. Astrue (2008) ca7
Leiter v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (2010) ca11
Diane Poellnitz v. Michael J. Astrue (2009) ca11
Saenz v. Colvin (2014) mad
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(c) — 5 cases
Charlene Bales v. Nancy Berryhill (2017) ca9
Forlizzo v. Commissioner of Social Security (2023) flmd
Gruenwald v. Commissioner of Social Security (2019) ilcd
Kender v. Commissioner Social Security Administration (2023) ord
May v. Commissioner Social Security Administration (2025) ord
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.