20 C.F.R. § 416.1336

Notice of intended action affecting recipient's payment status

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

(a) Advance written notice requirement. Advance written notice of intent to discontinue payment because of an event requiring suspension, reduction (see subpart D of this part), or termination of payments shall be given in all cases, prior to effectuation of the action, except where the Social Security Administration has factual information confirming the death of the recipient, e.g., as enumerated in § 404.704(b) of this chapter, or a report by a surviving spouse, a legal guardian, a parent or other close relative, or a landlord.

(b) Continuation of payment pending an appeal. The written notice of intent to suspend, reduce, or terminate payments shall allow 60 days after the date of receipt of the notice for the recipient to request the appropriate appellate review (see subpart N of this part). If appeal is filed within 10 days after the individual's receipt of the notice, the payment shall be continued or reinstated at the previously established payment level (subject to the effects of intervening events on the payment which are not appealed within 10 days of receipt of a required advance notice or which do not require advance notice, e.g., an increase in the benefit amount) until a decision on such initial appeal is issued, unless the individual specifically waives in writing his right to continuation of payment at the previously established level in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. (See § 416.1337 for exceptions to the continuation of payment level.) Where the request for the appropriate appellate review is filed more than 10 days after the notice is received but within the 60-day period specified in § 416.1413 or § 416.1425 of this part, there shall be no right to continuation or reinstatement of payment at the previously established level unless good cause is established under the criteria specified in § 416.1411 of this part for failure to appeal within 10 days after receipt of the notice. For purposes of this paragraph, the date of receipt of the notice of intent to suspend, reduce, or terminate payments shall be presumed to be 5 days after the date on the face of such notice, unless there is a reasonable showing to the contrary.

(c) Waiver of right to continued payment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the recipient, in order to avoid the possibility of an overpayment of benefits, may waive continuation of payment at the previously established level (subject to intervening events which would have increased the benefit for the month in which the incorrect payment was made, in which case the higher amount shall be paid), after having received a full explanation of his rights. The request for waiver of continuation of payment shall be in writing, state that waiver action is being initiated solely at the recipient's request, and state that the recipient understands his right to receive continued payment at the previously established level.

[43 FR 18170, Apr. 28, 1978, as amended at 65 FR 16815, Mar. 30, 2000]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Mathews v. Eldridge

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) scotus · cites it 2× “III); 20 CFR § 416.1336 (c) (1975); 40 Fed. Reg.”

Cardinale v. Mathews (1975) dcd · cites it 9× “20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1336 (c), .1417, .1419(a).”

Ford v. Shalala (1999) nyed · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1336 (a) and (b). Defendant’s regulations “may have justified plaintiffs’ legitimate claim of entitlement.”

Amin v. Colvin (2017) nyed · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 416.1336 (b). However, plaintiffs allege that, in practice, the benefits terminate even if a request for reconsideration is timely made because SSA employees fail to docket the request.”

Lyons v. Weinberger (1974) nysd “benefits on the basis of correspond *260 ing increases in Social Security payments, defendant relies on 20 C.F.R. § 416.1336 which provides that advance notice of a reduction is not required if it results from an increase in benefits payable under Federal law.”

Reichenthal v. Harris (1980) nyed “§ 1382 (c)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1336 . Cf. Eder v. Beal, 609 F.”

Johnson v. Mathews (1976) ca8 “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1336 (c) and 416.1425. We do not perceive any undue administrative burden which would be imposed by requiring the Secretary to include the plaintiff and the members of the class with those regular SSI recipients who have a right to a pretermination hearing.”

Chavis v. Heckler (1983) dcd “20 C.F.R. § 416.1336 . The Secretary does not contend that the constitutional and statutory requirements of notice and a pre-termination hearing are inapplicable in the case of SSI benefits.”

Frerks v. Shalala (1995) ca2 “” Such notice merely provides an affected individual an opportunity to challenge the determination through administrative proceedings, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.1336 (b); nothing in its language or purpose requires HHS to instruct individuals to dispose of their assets in order to…”

Morrell v. Harris (1981) paed “20 C.F.R. § 416.1336 (b). In 1974, the Social Security Act was amended to provide automatic cost-of-living increases in SSI benefit amounts.”

Taddonio Ex Rel. Taddonio v. Heckler (1985) paed · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 416.1336 (b). The plaintiff asserts that such termination of benefits prior to a hearing before an independent adjudicator is a violation of due process.”

FRERKS BY FRERKS v. Shalala (1994) nyed “The legislative history of this section also does not evince a purpose or intent by Congress to enact an affirmative duty on the Secretary's part with respect to notifying SSI recipients of the ability to transfer their assets to a SNT. See H.R. 231, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess.”

Show all 19 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.