C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER III—SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION › PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED › Subpart N—Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and Reopening of Determinations and Decisions

20 C.F.R. § 416.1400

Introduction

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

(a) Explanation of the administrative review process. This subpart explains the procedures we follow in determining your rights under title XVI of the Social Security Act. The regulations describe the process of administrative review and explain your right to judicial review after you have taken all the necessary administrative steps. The administrative review process consists of several steps, which usually must be requested within certain time periods and in the following order:

(1) Initial determination. This is a determination we make about your eligibility or your continuing eligibility for benefits or about any other matter, as discussed in § 416.1402, that gives you a right to further review.

(2) Reconsideration. If you are dissatisfied with an initial determination, you may ask us to reconsider it.

(3) Hearing before an administrative law judge. If you are dissatisfied with the reconsideration determination, you may request a hearing before an administrative law judge.

(4) Appeals Council review. If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the administrative law judge, you may request that the Appeals Council review the decision.

(5) Federal court review. When you have completed the steps of the administrative review process listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section, we will have made our final decision. If you are dissatisfied with our final decision, you may request judicial review by filing an action in a Federal district court.

(6) Expedited appeals process. At some time after your initial determination has been reviewed, if you have no dispute with our findings of fact and our application and interpretation of the controlling laws, but you believe that a part of the law is unconstitutional, you may use the expedited appeals process. This process permits you to go directly to a Federal district court so that the constitutional issue may be resolved.

(b) Nature of the administrative review process. In making a determination or decision in your case, we conduct the administrative review process in an informal, non-adversarial manner. Subject to certain timeframes at the hearing level (see § 416.1435) and the limitations on Appeals Council consideration of additional evidence (see § 416.1470), we will consider at each step of the review process any information you present as well as all the information in our records. You may present the information yourself or have someone represent you, including an attorney. If you are dissatisfied with our decision in the review process, but do not take the next step within the stated time period, you will lose your right to further administrative review and your right to judicial review, unless you can show us that there was good cause for your failure to make a timely request for review.

[45 FR 52096, Aug. 5, 1980, as amended at 51 FR 305, Jan. 3, 1986; 52 FR 4004, Feb. 9, 1987; 80 FR 14838, Mar. 20, 2015; 81 FR 90995, Dec. 16, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 207 cases (126 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Smith v. Berryhill
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Berryhill (2019) scotus · cites it 2× “See 20 CFR § 416.1400 . If a claimant has proceeded through all four steps on the merits, all agree, § 405(g) entitles him to judicial review in federal district court.”
Lindell Washington v. Commissioner of Social Security (2018) ca11 “" 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400 (b). The regulations also provide that the agency "will consider at each step of the review process any information [the claimant] present[s] as well as all the information in [the agency's] records .”
Purdy v. Berryhill (2018) ca1 “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1400 , 416.1467. Once the applicant has exhausted his administrative remedies, he may seek review in federal court.”
Higginbotham v. Barnhart (2005) ca5 · cites it 2× “Furthermore, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400 makes it clear that the Commissioner’s decision does not become final until after the Appeals Council makes its decision denying the claimant’s request for review.”
WRIGHT, Joya, Appellant, v. SULLIVAN, Louis, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1990) ca3 · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. 416.1400(a)(5) (1989). On April 19, 1989, Wright brought this action seeking review of the decision.”
Rita Schaal v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, 1 Dockets 96-6212, 96-6316 (1998) ca2 “At plaintiffs request a hearing was then held on December 21,1990, before an ALJ, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400 . On February 8, 1991, the ALJ ruled that plaintiff was not eligible for SSI benefits because she was not “disabled” for purposes of the Act.”
Martin v. Chater (1996) vawd · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 416.1400 (a)(1) and (2). If a claimant is dissatisfied with the decision on reconsideration a hearing may be requested before an Administrative Law Judge (Law Judge).”
Singer v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1983) nysd · cites it 3× “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1400 (a)(1), 416.1402. The only other type of determination is a “reconsidered determination” which is simply an initial determination that the SSI applicant or beneficiary has asked the SSA to reconsider.”
Beck v. Barnhart (2006) ca5 “DISCUSSION The SSI administrative review process includes an initial determination of eligibility, reconsideration, a hearing before an ALJ, and review by the Appeals Council, 20 C.”
James Ryan v. Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury (1993) cadc “Although 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400 sets forth a comprehensive explanation of how to proceed after-each stage in the process of applying for benefits, including an explanation of how to use the EAP, the record does not reflect that the Secretary provided Ryan with such an explanation.”
Gravel v. Barnhart (2005) nynd “§ 405 (g); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1400 (a), 416.1455, 416.”
Deanna English v. Social Security Administration (2017) ca3 “A “final decision” is one rendered after a claimant has completed a four-step administrative review process consisting of an initial determination, reconsideration, a hearing before an ALJ, and Appeals Council review.”
Show all 207 citing cases →
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a)(1) — 2 cases
Lee v. Commissioner of SSA (2024) mad
Nelson v. Dudek (2025) mnd
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a)(4) — 1 case
Dunbar v. Commissioner of Social Security (2025) flmd
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a)(5) — 1 case
WRIGHT, Joya, Appellant, v. SULLIVAN, Louis, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1990) ca3 “See 20 C.F.R. 416.1400(a)(5) (1989). On April 19, 1989, Wright brought this action seeking review of the decision.”
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.