20 C.F.R. § 404.989
Good cause for reopening
(a) We will find that there is good cause to reopen a determination or decision if—
(1) New and material evidence is furnished;
(2) A clerical error in the computation or recomputation of benefits was made; or
(3) The evidence that was considered in making the determination or decision clearly shows on its face that an error was made.
(b) We will not find good cause to reopen your case if the only reason for reopening is a change of legal interpretation or administrative ruling upon which the determination or decision was made.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 124
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Barbara Combs v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2006).
Barbara Combs v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2006). “99 20 C.F.R. 404.989, which defines good cause for the reopening of a decision, is also inapplicable: 100 We will not find good cause to reopen your case if the only reason for reopening is a change of legal interpretation or administrative ruling upon which the determination or…”
Doris Cole, on Behalf of James E. Cole, Deceased v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 288 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2002). “1 We have jurisdiction to consider whether there is error in such a decision to reopen for good cause under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.989 (a) and 416.1489(a) when the reopening and withdrawal of the ALJ’s April 1992 decision led to the ALJ’s August 27,1996 partially unfavorable decision…”
Osmund McGowen v. Patricia R. Harris, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 666 F.2d 60 (4th Cir. 1981). “Even though it is the same claim, the Secretary may nevertheless, within time limits and for “good cause” shown, reopen the claim and consider it on the merits, with or without new evidence.”
Ethel M. Munsinger v. Richard Schweiker, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 709 F.2d 1212 (8th Cir. 1983). “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.989 (a)(3) (1981). Munsinger urges that the reopening provisions of section 404.”
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). “988 (b) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.989 (a)). Section 404.957(b) provided: An initial .”
Charles Mitchael v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 809 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2016). “20 C.F.R. § 404.989 (b). Accordingly, the plaintiffs cannot establish that there is a clear, non-discretionary duty of the Commissioner to reconsider their benefits award, and thus the district court properly rejected the exercise of mandamus jurisdiction.”
William L. Albright v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 174 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999). “20 C.F.R. §§ 404.989 (a)(1),416.1489(a)(1).”
Otis W. BOGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 998 F.2d 342 (6th Cir. 1993). “20 C.F.R. § 404.989 (b). Also the Secretary may apply the doctrine of res judicata to bar an award of benefits for a period of disability for which a previous application for disability has previously been denied.”
James C. Dugan v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 957 F.2d 1384 (7th Cir. 1992). “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.989 (a)(1). But the Secretary had the relevant evidence in 1981.”
Gaynell McCuin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 817 F.2d 161 (1st Cir. 1987). “Ohio 1978) (construing pre-1980 regulation identical to the current 20 C.F.R. § 404.989 ). The advantage of this fourth interpretation is that it provides a basis for preserving some meaning both for the sixty-day time limit in § 404.”
Catherine A. FOX, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellant, 835 F.2d 1159 (6th Cir. 1987). “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.989 (b). The Secretary’s interpretation of these regulations in the Programs Operation Manual further specifies: A determination or decision in which there was an error on the face of the evidence on which it was based, may be reopened within 4 years of the…”
Ronald M. TYRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sec'y OF HEALTH & HUMAN Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 896 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1990). “1 “Good cause” for reopening is defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.989 : (a) We will find that there is good cause to reopen a determination or decision if— (1) New and material evidence is furnished.”
20 C.F.R. § 404.989(a)(1): 1 case
Albright v. Comm'r SSA (4th Cir. 1999).
20 C.F.R. § 404.989(a)(3): 4 cases
Catherine A. FOX, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellant, 835 F.2d 1159 (6th Cir. 1987). “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.989 (b). The Secretary’s interpretation of these regulations in the Programs Operation Manual further specifies: A determination or decision in which there was an error on the face of the evidence on which it was based, may be reopened within 4 years of the…”
Moore v. Sullivan, 731 F. Supp. 1009 (D. Kan. 1989).
Lloyd Hall v. Sec'y, Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1985).
McDonald v. Bowen, 697 F. Supp. 942 (S.D. Tex. 1988).
20 C.F.R. § 404.989(b): 2 cases
unempl.ins.rep. (Cch) P 14060b, 34 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 1995).
McDonald v. Bowen, 697 F. Supp. 942 (S.D. Tex. 1988).
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.