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. § 404.971

Dismissal by Appeals Council

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

The Appeals Council will dismiss your request for review if you did not file your request within the stated period of time and the time for filing has not been extended. The Appeals Council may also dismiss any proceedings before it if—

(a) You and any other party to the proceedings files a written request for dismissal; or

(b) You or any other party to the proceedings dies and the record clearly shows that dismissal will not adversely affect any other person who wishes to continue the action.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Jack D. Lashley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jack D. Lashley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1983) ca6 “20 C.F.R. § 404.971 . See McConnell, 655 F.”
Robert L. Smith v. Richard Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services for the United States (1982) ca11 “Benefits were denied by the ALJ after the hearing, and that denial was affirmed by the Secretary and District Court.”
Mozelle Clark v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant (1981) ca5 “20 C.F.R. § 404.971 . The parties both agree that in order for this regulation to be effective, there is an obligation on the part of the Secretary to notify the claimant of his or her right to be represented at the hearing before the administrative law judge.”
George Dietsch v. Richard Schweiker, as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (1983) ca2 “” When an AU’s decision is sent to a claimant, an accompanying form notice states that it is “presumed that this notice is received within five days after the date [of the decision] * * *.” App. at 17. Thus, a claimant in actuality has 65 days from the date of the ALJ’s decision…”
Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security (2018) ca6 “20 C.F.R. § 404.971 (1984). Such dismissal is binding and not subject to further review.”
Jane C. BACON, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1992) ca3 “On June 19, 1989, the Appeals Council dismissed Bacon’s request under 20 C.F.R. § 404.971 (1991), finding that no good cause existed to extend her time for filing a request for review.”
Charles J. SMITH, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee (1985) ca8 “20 C.F.R. § 404.971 (1984). Such dismissal is binding and not subject to further review.”
Gladene S. ADAMS, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee (1986) ca4 “20 C.F.R. § 404.971 (1984). Such dismissal is binding and not subject to further review.”
Mozelle Clark v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Resources (1981) ca5 “20 C.F.R. § 404.971 . The parties both agree that in order for this regulation to be effective, there is an obligation on the part of the Secretary to notify the claimant of his or her right to be represented at the hearing before the administrative law judge.”
Waters v. Massanari (2001) gand “The regulations provide that the Appeals Council may dismiss a request for review where the claimant has failed to file the request within the stated period of time and the time for filing has not been extended (20 CFR 404.971 and 416.1471). The time period will be extended if…”
Richard C. McConnell v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981) ca5 “A claimant’s statutory right to counsel at a Social Security hearing, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.971 , can be waived. We have said that “ ‘an Administrative Law Judge’s basic obligation to develop a full and fair record rises to a special duty when an unrepresented claimant unfamiliar…”
WHITZELL v. Astrue (2008) mad “20 C.F.R. §§ 404.971 , 416.1471. It will grant the request if (1) there appears to be an abuse of discretion by the hearing officer; (2) there is error of law; (3) there are concerns whether substantial evidence supports the hearing officer’s determinations or (4) there is a…”
Show all 57 citing cases →
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.971(b) — 1 case
White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (2024) azd
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.