20 C.F.R. § 416.1411

Good cause for missing the deadline to request review

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

(a) In determining whether you have shown that you have good cause for missing a deadline to request review we consider—

(1) What circumstances kept you from making the request on time;

(2) Whether our action misled you;

(3) Whether you did not understand the requirements of the Act resulting from amendments to the Act, other legislation, or court decisions; and

(4) Whether you had any physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitations (including any lack of facility with the English language) which prevented you from filing a timely request or from understanding or knowing about the need to file a timely request for review.

(b) Examples of circumstances where good cause may exist include, but are not limited to, the following situations:

(1) You were seriously ill and were prevented from contacting us in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person.

(2) There was a death or serious illness in your immediate family.

(3) Important records were destroyed or damaged by fire or other accidental cause.

(4) You were trying very hard to find necessary information to support your claim but did not find the information within the stated time periods.

(5) You asked us for additional information explaining our action within the time limit, and within 60 days of receiving the explanation you requested reconsideration or a hearing, or within 30 days of receiving the explanation you requested Appeals Council review or filed a civil suit.

(6) We gave you incorrect or incomplete information about when and how to request administrative review or to file a civil suit.

(7) You did not receive notice of the initial determination or decision.

(8) You sent the request to another Government agency in good faith within the time limit and the request did not reach us until after the time period had expired.

(9) Unusual or unavoidable circumstances exist, including the circumstances described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, which show that you could not have known of the need to file timely, or which prevented you from filing timely.

[45 FR 52096, Aug. 5, 1980, as amended at 59 FR 1637, Jan. 12, 1994]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Bernardo A. Torres v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bernardo A. Torres v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security (2005) ca2 · cites it 3× “By regulation, the Commissioner will grant such an extension upon a showing no more onerous than “good cause.”

Jackson v. Astrue (2007) ca11 · cites it 2× “First, she says that she has shown “good cause” for her untimely filing, as that term is defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.1411 . 3 Second, she claims that her limited linguistic and legal experience prevented her from fully comprehending the Appeals Council’s letter and caused her to…”

R.F. Vernon v. Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1987) ca9 “20 C.F.R. § 416.1411 (emphasis added). Although a claimant apparently need not request an extension from the Secretary pri- or to raising an estoppel or equitable tolling argument, see Bowen, 106 S.”

Donald Brandyburg v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1992) ca5 “1482, with the standards for determining whether good cause exists set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.1411 . Courts have been virtually unanimous in holding, as we did in McCall and Harper , that these determinations of whether to extend for cause the limitation periods prescribed by…”

Maiden v. Barnhart (2006) dcd “In determining whether a claimant has shown “good cause” for missing a deadline to request review, the SSA considers: "[w]hat circumstances kept [the claimant] from making the request on time ... and [w]hether [the claimant] had any physical, mental, educational, or linguistic…”

Banks v. Chater (1996) njd · cites it 2× “The regulations do not' require the ALJ to conduct a hearing on the issue of “good cause” under 20 C.F.R. § 416.1411 . Coffey v. Schweiker, 559 F.”

McLachlan v. Astrue (2010) ilnd “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1411 (a). By its plain terms, SSR 91-5p only addresses what constitutes good cause for extending a deadline for review of an adverse decision; it does not establish good cause to reopen a final decision.”

Richard Friddle v. Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1983) ca8 “The social security regulations provide that the Secretary may extend the time for filing of a suit seeking review if a claimant makes a written request with the Appeals Council stating the reasons for failure to file within the statutory period.”

Burbage v. Schweiker (1983) cand “20 C.F.R. § 416.1411 . Such a decision is not subject to judicial review under section 1361.”

Rosario v. Schweiker (1982) nyed “On July 14, 1981, an Administrative Law Judge dismissed plaintiff’s request, finding that she had failed to show good cause under 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1411 and 416.1433(c) for her failure to meet the deadline.”

Pulido v. Heckler (1983) cod “20 C.F.R. § 416.1411 (good cause for missing review request deadline); 20 C.”

Tafoya v. Social Security Administration (2022) nmd · cites it 4× “The standards in 20 CFR § 416.1411 for determining whether good cause exists are the following: (a) In determining whether [a claimant] ha[s] shown that [she] has good cause for missing a deadline to request review [the Appeals Council] considers— (1) What circumstances kept…”

Show all 32 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.