20 C.F.R. § 416.1429

Hearing before an administrative law judge—general

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

If you are dissatisfied with one of the determinations or decisions listed in § 416.1430, you may request a hearing. Subject to § 416.1456, the Deputy Commissioner for Hearings Operations, or their delegate, will appoint an administrative law judge to conduct the hearing. If circumstances warrant, the Deputy Commissioner for Hearings Operations, or their delegate, may assign your case to another administrative law judge. We will schedule you to appear by audio, agency video, online video, or in person as set forth in § 416.1436. Audio means telephone or similar audio-based technology in a private location you choose. Agency video means video, with audio functionality, using our equipment in one of our offices. Online video means video, with audio functionality, using a personal electronic device in a private location you choose. When we determine your manner of appearance, we consider the factors described in § 416.1436 (c)(1)(i) through (ii). You may submit new evidence (subject to the provisions of § 416.1435), examine the evidence used in making the determination or decision under review, and present and question witnesses. The administrative law judge who conducts the hearing may ask you questions. The administrative law judge will issue a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence in the hearing record. If you waive your right to appear at the hearing, the administrative law judge will make a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence that is in the file and, subject to the provisions of § 416.1435, any new evidence that may have been submitted for consideration.

[89 FR 68362, Aug. 26, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 47 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Banks v. ASTURE

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Banks v. ASTURE (2008) dcd · cites it 6× “The ALJ Did Not Deny Banks her Right to Question Witnesses Plaintiffs third ground for reversal or remand is that the ALJ failed to afford her the opportunity to question an adverse witness in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 416.1429 . 8 The Commissioner, however, argues that since the…”

Roberta Skinner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner (2007) ca7 “Skinner cites 20 C.F.R. § 416.1429 , which permits an applicant to appear via video teleconference at a disability hearing.”

Wilburn v. Astrue (2010) ca8 “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1429 (allowing for the reassignment of a case to another ALJ without requiring notice to the applicant); § 416.”

Rickabaugh v. Berryhill (2017) ded “at 230, 238) Rickabaugh then requested a-hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.1429 . (Tr. at 244) The hearing was held on July 25, 2012, and included testimony from Ric-kabaugh and a vocational expert, (“VE”).”

Walker v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERVS., DIST. I, ESCAMBIA CTY. (1988) fladistctapp “[2] Walker would argue that under 20 C.F.R. § 416.1429 , he was entitled to submit new evidence before the hearings officer as well as the evidence used in making the determination or decision under review.”

Ford v. Shalala (1999) nyed “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1429 . In fiscal year 1998, defendant required an average of 850 days to complete review of a hearing decision.”

Harper v. Bowen (1987) ca5 “See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1429 to 416.1468. If the claimant objects to the subsequent decision, he or she may appeal the AU’s determination to the Appeals Council.”

Pulido v. Heckler (1983) cod “and 20 C.F.R. § 416.1429 et seq. Those regulations include a provision for a change in the time and place for a scheduled hearing upon a showing of “good cause.”

Cullivan v. Shalala (1995) txed “See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1429 to 416.1468. If the claimant still objects to the decision, he or she may appeal the AL J’s determination to the Appeals Council.”

Jack C. JEFFCOAT v. SECRETARY OF HHS (1995) txed “See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1429 to 416.1468. If the claimant still objects to the decision, he or she may appeal the ALJ’s determination to the Appeals Council.”

Walhood v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1995) txed “See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1429 to 416.1468. If the claimant still objects to the decision, he or she may appeal the ALJ’s determination to the Appeals Council.”

Richard v. Secretary of HHS (1995) txed “See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1429 to 416.1468. If the claimant still objects to the decision, she or she may appeal the AL J’s determination to the Appeals Council.”

Show all 47 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.