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. § 416.1470

Cases the Appeals Council will review

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

(a) The Appeals Council will review a case at a party's request or on its own motion if—

(1) There appears to be an abuse of discretion by the administrative law judge or administrative appeals judge who heard the case;

(2) There is an error of law;

(3) The action, findings or conclusions in the hearing decision or dismissal order are not supported by substantial evidence;

(4) There is a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the general public interest; or

(5) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, the Appeals Council receives additional evidence that is new, material, and relates to the period on or before the date of the hearing decision, and there is a reasonable probability that the additional evidence would change the outcome of the decision.

(b) In reviewing decisions other than those based on an application for benefits, the Appeals Council will consider the evidence in the administrative law judge hearing record and any additional evidence it believes is material to an issue being considered. However, in reviewing decisions based on an application for benefits, the Appeals Council will only consider additional evidence under paragraph (a)(5) of this section if you show good cause for not informing us about or submitting the evidence as described in § 416.1435 because:

(1) Our action misled you;

(2) You had a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation(s) that prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier; or

(3) Some other unusual, unexpected, or unavoidable circumstance beyond your control prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier. Examples include, but are not limited to:

(i) You were seriously ill, and your illness prevented you from contacting us in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person;

(ii) There was a death or serious illness in your immediate family;

(iii) Important records were destroyed or damaged by fire or other accidental cause;

(iv) You actively and diligently sought evidence from a source and the evidence was not received or was received less than 5 business days prior to the hearing; or

(v) You received a hearing level decision on the record and the Appeals Council reviewed your decision.

(c) If you submit additional evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision as required in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, or the Appeals Council does not find you had good cause for missing the deadline to submit the evidence in § 416.1435, the Appeals Council will send you a notice that explains why it did not accept the additional evidence and advises you of your right to file a new application. The notice will also advise you that if you file a new application within 60 days after the date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review will constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits under § 416.340. If you file a new application within 60 days of the Appeals Council's notice, we will use the date you requested Appeals Council review as the filing date for your new application.

[81 FR 90996, Dec. 16, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 73160, Nov. 16, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 352 cases (208 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Maria Teresa Pupo v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maria Teresa Pupo v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2021) ca11 · cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470 (a)(5). 3 We review de novo the Appeals Council’s refusal to consider new evidence.”
Mills v. Social Security (2001) ca1 · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 416.1470 (b). Several circuits have relied on this regulation (or its counterpart in Part 404) to justify court review of the ALJ’s decision based on the new evidence.”
Donnell Mitchell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2014) ca11 “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470 (b); see also Dyer, 395 F.”
Christopher Hearn v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2015) ca11 · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470 (b). If new and material evidence is submitted, the Appeals Council must consider the additional evidence that relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ’s hearing decision.”
Cornelius Washington v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner (2015) ca11 “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470 (b). But the Appeals Council “must consider new, material, and chronologically relevant evidence” that the claimant submits.”
Thomas Atha, Jr. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2015) ca11 “2007); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470 (b). Evidence is material if “there is a reasonable possibility that the new evidence would change the administrative outcome.”
Padilla v. Astrue (2013) ca10 · cites it 2× “He contends that despite putting the additional evidence into the record, the Appeals Council did not properly consider the new evidence even though it met the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470 (b) (stating that additional evidence should only be considered if it is new,…”
Ted Martin v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (1990) ca11 “20 C.F.R. § 416.1470 (1985). 7 . In pertinent part, § 405(g) provides: Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action…”
Russell Ex Rel. C.G. v. Astrue (2010) gand · cites it 4× “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470 (b). Second, the evidence must “relate[] to the period on or before the date of the [ALJ] hearing decision.”
Jeffries v. Astrue (2010) dcd · cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470 (a) (2010). Moreover, the regulations provide that the Appeals Council will only review a case “if it finds that the [AL J]’s action, findings, or conclusion is contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record.”
McIntire v. Astrue (2010) ctd · cites it 2× “” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1470 (b), 416.1476(b)(2).”
Cruz v. Barnhart (2004) nysd “This report, dated just prior to the October 26, 2000 ALJ Decision, was properly submitted to the Appeals Council, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470 (b), but there is no analysis of it in the Appeals Council’s February 22, 2002 decision.”
Show all 352 citing cases →
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470(a)(5) — 6 cases
Knight v. Commissioner Social Security Administration (2024) ord
Weddington v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner (2021) alnd
Morelli v. Saul (2022) ctd
Graham v. Berryhill (2019) nysd
Wake v. Commissioner of Social Security (2022) nywd
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470(b) — 1 case
Jackson v. Heckler (1986) nysd
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.