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
(a) Limitation of issues. The Appeals Council may limit the issues it considers if it notifies you and the other parties of the issues it will review.
(b) Evidence the Appeals Council will exhibit. The Appeals Council will evaluate all additional evidence it receives, but will only mark as an exhibit and make part of the official record additional evidence that it determines meets the requirements of § 416.1470(a)(5) and (b). If we need to file a certified administrative record in Federal court, we will include in that record all additional evidence the Appeals Council received during the administrative review process, including additional evidence that the Appeals Council received but did not exhibit or make part of the official record.
(c) Oral argument. You may request to appear before the Appeals Council to present oral argument in support of your request for review. The Appeals Council will grant your request if it decides that your case raises an important question of law or policy or that oral argument would help to reach a proper decision. If your request to appear is granted, the Appeals Council will tell you the time and place of the oral argument at least 10 business days before the scheduled date. The Appeals Council will determine whether your appearance will be by audio, agency video, online video, or in person as set forth in § 416.1436. The Appeals Council will determine whether any other person relevant to the proceeding will appear by audio, agency video, online video, or in person as set forth in § 416.1436(c)(2).
[81 FR 90996, Dec. 16, 2016, as amended at 84 FR 69308, Dec. 18, 2019; 85 FR 73160, Nov. 16, 2020; 89 FR 68364, Aug. 26, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Banks Ex Rel. Hunter v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 686 F. App'x 706 (11th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 3× “3d at 1320 ; 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476 (b)(1). Evidence is chronologically relevant if it “relates to the period on or before the date” of the ALJ’s decision.”
McIntire v. Astrue, 809 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D. Conn. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The Court resolved the issue by referring to 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476 (b)(2), which provides as follows: “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…”
Jones v. Astrue, 228 F. App'x 403 (5th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 5× “§ 405 (g), sentence six, or 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476 (b)(1)” and therefore requires remand; and (3) whether the ALJ erred as a matter of law by positing a defective hypothetical question to the vocational expert.”
Baladi v. Barnhart, 33 F. App'x 562 (2d Cir. 2002).
“Under 20 C.F.R § 416.1476, when an applicant submits new evidence to the Appeals Council that relates to the applicant’s condition after the date of the ALJ’s decision, the Appeals Council is required to return the evidence and note that if the plaintiff wishes to file a new…”
Aikens v. Shalala, 956 F. Supp. 14 (D.D.C. 1997).
“In cases that do not involve an application for benefits, such as this case, “the Appeals Council shall evaluate the entire record including any new and material evidence submitted.”
Alexander v. Apfel, 14 F. Supp. 2d 839 (W.D. Va. 1998).
“See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476 (b). 3 . This court has adopted the same approach in numerous social security appeals when it is clear upon review of "interim" evidence that the Commissioner’s underlying decision is, or is not, supported by substantial evidence.”
Hangartner v. Shalala, 865 F. Supp. 755 (D. Utah 1994).
“The comparable provision applicable to SSI benefits is 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476 (b)(1). . The only medical record before the AU concerning plaintiff's mental condition was a report dated May 22, 1992 by psychiatrist Stephen M.”
Blackwell v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r (N.D. Ala. 2020).
“2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476 (b)(1)). Even records that postdate the ALJ’s decision may be chronologically relevant when the records assess conditions existing prior to the decision, the physician evaluated medical records from before the ALJ’s decision, and there is no…”
Washington v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r (N.D. Ala. 2020).
“2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476 (b)(1)). “Even records that postdate the ALJ’s decision may be chronologically relevant when the records assess conditions existing prior to the decision, the physician evaluated medical records from before the ALJ’s decision, and there is no…”
Harrison v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r (N.D. Ala. 2021).
“2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476 (b)(1)). “Even records that postdate the ALJ’s decision may be chronologically relevant when the records assess conditions existing prior to the decision, the physician evaluated medical records from before the ALJ’s decision, and there is no…”
Hudson v. Berryhill (S.D. Ga. 2019).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476 . Here, there is no record of Plaintiff requesting an in-person hearing.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476(b) — 1 case
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476(b)(1) — 1 case
Jones v. Astrue, 228 F. App'x 403 (5th Cir. 2007).
“§ 405 (g), sentence six, or 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476 (b)(1)” and therefore requires remand; and (3) whether the ALJ erred as a matter of law by positing a defective hypothetical question to the vocational expert.”
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.