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. § 404.973

Notice of Appeals Council review

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

When the Appeals Council decides to review a case, it shall mail a prior notice to all parties at their last known address stating the reasons for the review and the issues to be considered. However, when the Appeals Council plans to issue a decision that is fully favorable to all parties, plans to remand the case for further proceedings, or plans to issue a decision that is favorable in part and remand the remaining issues for further proceedings, it may send the notice of Appeals Council review to all parties with the decision or remand order.

[85 FR 73157, Nov. 16, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: John Chrupcala v. Margaret M. Heckler, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 829 F.2d 1269 (3d Cir. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John Chrupcala v. Margaret M. Heckler, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 829 F.2d 1269 (3d Cir. 1987). “” The Kennedy court grounded its decision in 20 C.F.R. § 404.973 , which provides that “[w]hen the Appeals Council decides to review a case, it shall mail notice to all parties at their last known address stating the reasons for the review and the issues to be considered.”
Atkins v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 596 F. App'x 864 (11th Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “But Kennedy and its progeny are grounded in the specific notice requirement of 20 C.F.R. § 404.973 , which applies when the Appeals Council itself is reviewing the claimant’s case.”
James E. KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Sec'y, Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 814 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1987). “20 C.F.R. § 404.973 (1986) (emphasis added).”
Shelia BIVINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. of the United States, Defendant-Appellee, 833 F.2d 293 (11th Cir. 1987). “It provides: When the Appeals Council decides to review a case, it shall mail a notice to all parties at their last known address stating the reasons for the review and the issues to be considered.”
Norris v. Colvin, 142 F. Supp. 3d 419 (D.S.C. 2015). “970(b) (emphasis added); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.973 (“The Appeals Council will consider all the evidence in the administrative law judge hearing record as well as any new and material evidence submitted to it which relates to the period on or before the date of the…”
Aversa v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 672 F. Supp. 775 (D.N.J. 1987). “In order to do this, the Council would have had to review the AU’s findings as well as the new evidence.”
Wood v. Schweiker, 537 F. Supp. 660 (D.S.C. 1982). “There is no evidence in the record that plaintiff was ever provided with the reasons for the review and the issues to be considered, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.973 . Furthermore, while the Appeals Council is empowered to receive "additional evidence .”
Everhart v. Bowen, 694 F. Supp. 1518 (D. Colo. 1988). “" 20 C.F.R. § 404.973 (1986) (emphasis added).”
McDonald v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 796 F. Supp. 616 (D. Mass. 1992). “967-404.969 . 2 . When the Appeals Council decides to review a case, it shall mail a notice to all parties at their last known address stating the reasons for the review and issues to be considered.”
Sorenson v. Bowen, 709 F. Supp. 1045 (D. Utah 1988). · cites it 6× “969 or 20 C.F.R. § 404.973 , should apply. Powell and Kennedy each rely on a different regulation to establish the notice requirements relative to council expansion of the scope of claimant-initiated review.”
Thomas v. Bowen, 693 F. Supp. 950 (W.D. Wash. 1988). “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.973 . The Appeals Council may deny or dismiss a claimant’s request for review, or it may grant the request and either issue a decision or remand the case to an administrative law judge.”
Baker ex rel. Baker v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 319 (11th Cir. 1989). “On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that absent notice (required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.973 ) to the claimant of the Appeals Council’s intent to re-examine issues not challenged by the claimant, that it was precluded from sua sponte expanding the scope of review and upsetting the…”
Show all 16 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.