20 C.F.R. § 416.1440
Disqualification of the administrative law judge
An administrative law judge shall not conduct a hearing if he or she is prejudiced or partial with respect to any party or has any interest in the matter pending for decision. If you object to the administrative law judge who will conduct the hearing, you must notify the administrative law judge at your earliest opportunity. The administrative law judge shall consider your objections and shall decide whether to proceed with the hearing or withdraw. If he or she withdraws, the Associate Commissioner for Hearings and Appeals, or his or her delegate, will appoint another administrative law judge to conduct the hearing. If the administrative law judge does not withdraw, you may, after the hearing, present your objections to the Appeals Council as reasons why the hearing decision should be revised or a new hearing held before another administrative law judge.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Jeannette E. Hummel v. Margaret A. Heckler, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 736 F.2d 91 (3rd Cir. 1984).
Jeannette E. Hummel v. Margaret A. Heckler, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 736 F.2d 91 (3rd Cir. 1984). “20 C.F.R. § 416.1440 (1983). The quoted regulation apparently contemplates that factfinding with respect to claims of bias take place at the agency level, and that judicial review of bias claims take place in review proceedings under section 405(g).”
Morris TRAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellant, 985 F.2d 919 (7th Cir. 1993). “1991); 20 C.F.R. 416.1440. And we find it significant that Travis did not even request a different ALJ in his motion for remand.”
Algiers MUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 925 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1991). “20 C.F.R. § 416.1440 (1990). Muse claims that the AU, by certain language in his opinion, demonstrated obvious bias and prejudice against Muse.”
Jerome G. WEIKERT, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 977 F.2d 1249 (8th Cir. 1992). “At any rate, this particularized complaint does not amount to an allegation of pervasive unfairness.”
Wilburn v. Astrue, 626 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2010). “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1440 . Notably, Wilburn did not avail herself of this opportunity to appeal based upon an objection to the substitution of ALJ Bock.”
Grant v. Sullivan, 720 F. Supp. 462 (M.D. Penn. 1989). “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1440 . The Court of Appeals then assumed, without deciding, that had Hummel been aware of the facts giving rise to her claim of bias at the time of her hearing before the administrative law judge, she would be deemed to have waived her bias claim by failing…”
Joe David Banks v. Richard S. Schweiker, Sec'y, Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1981). “” The SSA’s own regulations recognize the importance of the opportunity helpful to a claimant’s case by providing that the claimant may request subpoenas, see 20 CFR 416.1440, or permitting continuances, see 20 CFR 416.”
Small v. Sullivan, 820 F. Supp. 1098 (S.D. Ill. 1992). “If the [ALJ] does not withdraw, you may, after the hearing, present your objections to the Appeals Council as reasons why the hearing decision should be revised or a new hearing held before another [ALJ].”
Schaal v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 969 F. Supp. 822 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). “20 C.F.R. § 416.1440 . If, after considering the claimant’s objections, the ALJ does not withdraw, the claimant may, after the hearing, present her objections to the Appeals Council and request that the hearing be revised or a new hearing held before another ALJ.”
Pastrana v. Chater, 917 F. Supp. 103 (D.P.R. 1996). “[from] conducting] a hearing if he or she is prejudiced or partial with respect to any party or has any interest in the matter pending-” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1440 (1995). This regulation is similar to the law governing disqualification for Article III judges.”
Springer v. Berryhill (M.D. Penn. 2020). “20 C.F.R. § 416.1440 . As observed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, this regulation “contemplates that factfinding with respect to claims of bias take place at the agency level, and that judicial review of bias claims take place in review proceedings under section 405(g).”
Gilbert Martinez v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. (3rd Cir. 2023). “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1440 ; Hummel v. Heckler, 736 F.”
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.