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. § 416.1472

Effect of dismissal of request for Appeals Council review

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

The dismissal of a request for Appeals Council review is binding and not subject to further review.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1987–2023 · leading case: Smith v. Berryhill
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Berryhill (2019) scotus “See 20 CFR § 416.1472 . Turning to the second clause ("made after a hearing"), we note that this phrase has been the subject of some confusion over the years.”
Schuster v. Astrue (2012) paed “20 C.F.R. § 416.1472 . Plaintiff initiated the present civil action in this Court on March 28, 2011.”
Harper v. Bowen (1987) ca5 · cites it 4× “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1472 . The Appeals Council does have the discretion, however, to grant an extension of time to seek review; extension will be granted if the claimant can show good cause for missing the deadline for review.”
James MATLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Etc., Defendant-Appellee (1990) ca9 “20 C.F.R. § 416.1472 . In addition, the Eleventh Circuit distinguished refusals to hear untimely petitions from refusals to reopen benefits claims, at issue in Sanders , by characterizing the opportunity to reopen a claim as a “bonus opportunity” which affords a claimant a…”
Callender v. Social Security Administration (2008) ca3 “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1472 . Two years later, on July 11, 2006, Cal-lender filed a complaint in the District Court seeking review of the ALJ’s decision.”
Zaky v. Commissioner of Social Security (2020) ctd “at 1772 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.1472 ). Section 405(g) contains “a ‘jurisdictional’ requirement that claims be presented to the agency, and .”
Soto Saez v. Berryhill (2020) ctd “(citing 20 CFR § 416.1472 ). Unlike the dismissal in Smith, here, the ALJ merely declined to “escalat[e] the claimant’s application for disability insurance benefits to the hearing level” and instead directed the SSA to “reassess whether the claimant’s official earnings is…”
Thompson v. Saul (2021) ilnd “Compare 20 C.F.R. § 416.1472 with 20 C.F.R. § 404.”
Troxell v. Commissioner of Social Security (2021) kywd “(citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.1472 ); see also 20 C.F.R.”
Lawson v. Saul (2020) nynd “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1472 (dismissals are “binding and not subject to further review” by the SSA).”
Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security (2020) nywd “at 1772–73 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.1472 ). As the Supreme Court explained, the “final decision” in such a case is “closely tethered” to the ALJ’s hearing on the merits.”
PRIMER v. BERRYHILL (2020) paed “20 C.F.R. § 416.1472 . Plaintiff commenced this action on December 12, 2018.”
Show all 23 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.