20 C.F.R. § 416.1453

The decision of an administrative law judge

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

(a) General. The administrative law judge shall issue a written decision which gives the findings of fact and the reasons for the decision. The administrative law judge must base the decision on the preponderance of the evidence offered at the hearing or otherwise included in the record. The administrative law judge shall mail a copy of the decision to all the parties at their last known address. The Appeals Council may also receive a copy of the decision.

(b) Fully favorable oral decision entered into the record at the hearing. The administrative law judge may enter a fully favorable oral decision based on the preponderance of the evidence into the record of the hearing proceedings. If the administrative law judge enters a fully favorable oral decision into the record of the hearing proceedings, the administrative law judge may issue a written decision that incorporates the oral decision by reference. The administrative law judge may use this procedure only in those categories of cases that we identify in advance. The administrative law judge may only use this procedure in those cases where the administrative law judge determines that no changes are required in the findings of fact or the reasons for the decision as stated at the hearing. If a fully favorable decision is entered into the record at the hearing, the administrative law judge will also include in the record, as an exhibit entered into the record at the hearing, a document that sets forth the key data, findings of fact, and narrative rationale for the decision. If the decision incorporates by reference the findings and the reasons stated in an oral decision at the hearing, the parties shall also be provided, upon written request, a record of the oral decision.

(c) Time for the administrative law judge's decision. (1) The administrative law judge must issue the hearing decision no later than 90 days after the request for hearing is filed, unless—

(i) The matter to be decided is whether you are disabled; or

(ii) There is good cause for extending the time period because of unavoidable circumstances.

(2) Good cause for extending the time period may be found under the following circumstances:

(i) Delay caused by you or by your representative's action. The time period for decision in this instance may be extended by the total number of days of the delays. The delays include delays in submitting evidence, briefs, or other statements, postponements or adjournments made at your request, and any other delays caused by you or your representative.

(ii) Other delays. The time period for decision may be extended where delays occur through no fault of the Commissioner. In this instance, the decision will be issued as soon as practicable.

(d) Recommended decision. Although an administrative law judge will usually make a decision, the administrative law judge may send the case to the Appeals Council with a recommended decision based on a preponderance of the evidence when appropriate. The administrative law judge will mail a copy of the recommended decision to the parties at their last known addresses and send the recommended decision to the Appeals Council.

[45 FR 52096, Aug. 5, 1980, as amended at 51 FR 308, Jan. 3, 1986; 54 FR 37793, Sept. 13, 1989; 62 FR 38455, July 18, 1997; 69 FR 61597, Oct. 20, 2004; 73 FR 76945, Dec. 18, 2008; 75 FR 33169, June 11, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Ward v. Schweiker, 562 F. Supp. 1173 (W.D. Mo. 1983).
Ward v. Schweiker, 562 F. Supp. 1173 (W.D. Mo. 1983). · cites it 3× “In support of this contention, defendant makes reference to the regulations implementing § 1383(c)(2) codified at 20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 (b) (1981). Those regulations, however, are not nearly so detailed as the provisions of the stipulated dismissal.”
Ernestine KEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellant, 925 F.2d 1056 (7th Cir. 1991). “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 (c). Section 416.1477(a) of 20 C.”
Rodriguez v. Astrue, 694 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D. Mass. 2010). “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 (a) (“The administrative law judge must base the decision on the preponderance of the evidence offered at the hearing or otherwise included in the record.”
Bland v. Astrue, 432 F. App'x 719 (10th Cir. 2011). “; see 20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 (c)(2)(i) (contemplating submission of evidence and briefs as a reason for extending ALJ’s deadline to issue a decision).”
Billy R. Scott v. Otis R. Bowen, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 808 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir. 1987). “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 (c) (1986) (emphasis added).”
Pulido v. Heckler, 568 F. Supp. 627 (D. Colo. 1983). “1411 (good cause for missing review request deadline); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 (good cause for extending deadline for ALJ hearing decision); 20 C.”
Altieri v. Sullivan, 754 F. Supp. 34 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). “In its letter granting review, the Appeals Council stated, The hearing decision contains no rationale for the conclusion reached nor a discussion of the relevant evidence as required by 20 CFR 416.1453. Altieri then requested an appearance before the Appeals Council to present…”
Carlson v. Shalala, 841 F. Supp. 1031 (D. Nev. 1993). “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 . In this action, the ALJ reviewed twenty-six exhibits (listed at AR 1), including voluminous medical records.”
Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ind. 2020). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 (a); Jones for Jones, 101 F.”
Swartout v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D. Mich. 2023). · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 (a). A review of the ALJ’s decision reveals that he complied with this requirement.”
Inman v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin. (D.N.J. 2024). · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 (a) (emphasis added).”
Bisignano (D.R.I. 2026). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 (a). However, nothing requires the ALJ to recite that fundamental proposition in 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.