20 C.F.R. § 404.992

Notice of revised determination or decision

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

(a) When a determination or decision is revised, notice of the revision will be mailed to the parties at their last known address. The notice will state the basis for the revised determination or decision and the effect of the revision. The notice will also inform the parties of the right to further review.

(b) If a reconsidered determination that you are disabled, based on medical factors, is reopened for the purpose of being revised, you will be notified, in writing, of the proposed revision and of your right to request that a disability hearing be held before a revised reconsidered determination is issued. If a revised reconsidered determination is issued, you may request a hearing before an administrative law judge.

(c) If an administrative law judge or the Appeals Council proposes to revise a decision, and the revision would be based on evidence not included in the record on which the prior decision was based, you and any other parties to the decision will be notified, in writing, of the proposed action and of your right to request that a hearing be held before any further action is taken. If a revised decision is issued by an administrative law judge, you and any other party may request that it be reviewed by the Appeals Council, or the Appeals Council may review the decision on its own initiative.

(d) If an administrative law judge or the Appeals Council proposes to revise a decision, and the revision would be based only on evidence included in the record on which the prior decision was based, you and any other parties to the decision will be notified, in writing, of the proposed action. If a revised decision is issued by an administrative law judge, you and any other party may request that it be reviewed by the Appeals Council, or the Appeals Council may review the decision on its own initiative.

[51 FR 303, Jan. 3, 1986]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2022 · leading case: Linda Cash v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Linda Cash v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security (2003) ca11 “However, her due process argument hinges on a finding that a reopening occurred, thus entitling her to a hearing under 20 C.F.R. § 404.992 (b). As we explained, no reopening occurred in Cash’s case.”

Ferriell v. Commissioner of Social Security (2010) ca6 “20 C.F.R. § 404.992 (a); see also Soc. Sec.”

Katz v. Sullivan (1991) nyed “*973 The fact that 20 C.F.R. § 404.992 is the only regulation governing "revised determinations" and that 20 C.”

Lloyd A. Gentry v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health & Human Services (1995) ca10 “987(a); new evidence is not required to justify a revision, see 20 C.F.R. 404.992(d). Thus, the ALJ was well within his authority to revise his earlier determination after claimant had requested reconsideration.”

Harp v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (2022) wied “20 C.F.R. § 404.992 (c); see also Jaxson, 970 F.”

Linda Cash v. Joanne B. Barnhart (2003) ca11 “However, her due process argument hinges on a finding that a reopening occurred, thus entitling her to a hearing under 20 C.F.R. § 404.992 (b). As we explain, no reopening occurred in Cash’s case.”

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.992(d) — 1 case

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.