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. § 416.1455

The effect of a hearing decision

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

The decision of the administrative law judge is binding on all parties to the hearing unless—

(a) You or another party request a review of the decision by the Appeals Council within the stated time period, and the Appeals Council reviews your case;

(b) You or another party requests a review of the decision by the Appeals Council within the stated time period, the Appeals Council denies your request for review, and you seek judicial review of your case by filing an action in a Federal district court;

(c) The Appeals Council decides on its own motion to review the decision under the procedures in § 416.1469;

(d) The decision is revised by an administrative law judge or the Appeals Council under the procedures explained in § 416.1487;

(e) The expedited appeals process is used;

(f) The decision is a recommended decision directed to the Appeals Council; or

(g) In a case remanded by a Federal court, the Appeals Council assumes jurisdiction under the procedures in § 416.1484.

[45 FR 52096, Aug. 5, 1980, as amended at 51 FR 308, Jan. 3, 1986; 54 FR 37793, Sept. 13, 1989; 85 FR 73159, Nov. 16, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Kip Yurt v. Carolyn Colvin, 758 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kip Yurt v. Carolyn Colvin, 758 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2014). “Alternatively, she found at Step Five that Yurt could also work as an industrial janitor, cleaner, or towel folder consistent with the VE’s testimony on that point; accordingly, she entered a finding that Yurt was “not disabled.”
Bates v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2013). “20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1455 , 416.1481. Bates then appealed the ALJ’s decision to the district court, which affirmed.”
Benko v. Schweiker, 551 F. Supp. 698 (D.N.H. 1982). · cites it 2× “This doctrine is recognized by the Secretary and has been incorporated into the regulations as 20 C.F.R. 416.1455, providing the general rule that “The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is binding on all parties to the hearing unless .”
Campbell v. Astrue, 596 F. Supp. 2d 446 (D. Conn. 2009). “20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1455 , 416.1481 (2007). On October 19, 2007, Campbell filed the current action, and on August 22, 2008, Magistrate Judge Fitzsimmons issued the Recommended Ruling.”
Juanita M. Patti v. Richard S. Schweiker, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 669 F.2d 582 (9th Cir. 1982). “20 C.F.R. § 416.1455 (1981). In the present case, neither the Secretary nor the claimant saw fit to disturb the 1978 determination by an ALJ that the claimant was disabled at that time.”
Harley G. Dotson, Jr. v. Richard S. Schweiker, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., United States of Am., 719 F.2d 80 (4th Cir. 1984). “20 C.F.R. § 416.1455 (1981). In the present case, neither the Secretary nor the claimant saw fit to disturb the 1978 determination by an ALJ that the claimant was disabled at that time.”
W.C. v. Otis R. Bowen, Sec'y, Health & Human Servs., 807 F.2d 1502 (9th Cir. 1987). “20 C.F.R. § 416.1455 . Since no valid review of the ALJ decisions was taken, they became binding.”
Rogers v. Barnhart, 446 F. Supp. 2d 828 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1455 ; 416.1481. Plaintiff has appealed that decision to the federal district court under 42 U.”
Polaski v. Heckler, 585 F. Supp. 1004 (D. Minnesota 1984). “20 C.F.R. § 416.1455 (1981). 669 F.2d at 586 .”
Donis Buckley v. Margaret M. Heckler, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant, 739 F.2d 1047 (5th Cir. 1984). “Nevertheless, a prior determination of disability is not without effect; it is binding on all parties to the hearing, 20 C.F.R. 416.1455 (1983); Patti v. Schweiker, 669 F.”
Connor v. Chater, 947 F. Supp. 56 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). “§ 405 (g); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1455 , 416.1481; Santos, 942 F.”
Willis v. Chater, 939 F. Supp. 1236 (W.D. Va. 1996). “6 Contrary to the Commissioner’s argument, 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1455 and 416.1481 state only that the ALJ’s opinion or the Appeals Council’s opinion upon review of the ALJ’s opinion is binding if not further appealed to the courts.”
Show all 67 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.