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. § 416.1440

Disqualification of the administrative law judge

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

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, Secretary of Health and Human Services
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jeannette E. Hummel v. Margaret A. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1984) ca3 · cites it 2× “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, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellant (1993) ca7 · cites it 2× “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., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appelle (1991) ca5 “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., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee (1992) ca8 “At any rate, this particularized complaint does not amount to an allegation of pervasive unfairness.”
Wilburn v. Astrue (2010) ca8 “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 (1989) pamd · cites it 3× “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, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (1981) ca9 “” 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 (1992) ilsd “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. Commissioner of Social Security (1996) nynd “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 (1996) prd “[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 (2020) pamd · cites it 2× “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. Commissioner Social Security (2023) ca3 “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1440 ; Hummel v. Heckler, 736 F.”
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.