20 C.F.R. § 416.1484

Appeals Council review of hearing decision in a case remanded by a Federal court

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

(a) General. In accordance with § 416.1483, when a case is remanded by a Federal court for further consideration and the Appeals Council remands the case to an administrative law judge, or an administrative appeals judge issues a decision pursuant to § 416.1483(c), the decision of the administrative law judge or administrative appeals judge will become the final decision of the Commissioner after remand on your case unless the Appeals Council assumes jurisdiction of the case. The Appeals Council may assume jurisdiction, using the standard set forth in § 416.1470, based on written exceptions to the decision which you file with the Appeals Council or based on its authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. If the Appeals Council assumes jurisdiction of the case, it will not dismiss the request for a hearing in a claim where we are otherwise required by law or a judicial order to file the Commissioner's additional and modified findings of fact and decision with a court.

(b) You file exceptions disagreeing with the hearing decision. (1) If you disagree with the hearing decision, in whole or in part, you may file exceptions to the decision with the Appeals Council. Exceptions may be filed by submitting a written statement to the Appeals Council setting forth your reasons for disagreeing with the decision of the administrative law judge or administrative appeals judge. The exceptions must be filed within 30 days of the date you receive the hearing decision or an extension of time in which to submit exceptions must be requested in writing within the 30-day period. A timely request for a 30-day extension will be granted by the Appeals Council. A request for an extension of more than 30 days should include a statement of reasons as to why you need the additional time.

(2) If written exceptions are timely filed, the Appeals Council will consider your reasons for disagreeing with the hearing decision and all the issues presented by your case. If the Appeals Council concludes that there is no reason to change the hearing decision, it will issue a notice to you addressing your exceptions and explaining why no change in the hearing decision is warranted. In this instance, the hearing decision is the final decision of the Commissioner after remand.

(3) When you file written exceptions to the hearing decision, the Appeals Council may assume jurisdiction at any time, even after the 60-day time period which applies when you do not file exceptions. If the Appeals Council assumes jurisdiction of your case, any issues relating to your claim may be considered by the Appeals Council whether or not they were raised in the administrative proceedings leading to the final decision in your case or subsequently considered by the administrative law judge or administrative appeals judge in the administrative proceedings following the court's remand order. The Appeals Council will either make a new, independent decision pursuant to § 416.1483(b) or § 416.1483(c), based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record that will be the final decision of the Commissioner after remand, dismiss the request for a hearing, or remand the case to an administrative law judge for further proceedings, including a new decision.

(c) Appeals Council assumes jurisdiction without exceptions being filed. Any time within 60 days after the date of the hearing decision, the Appeals Council may decide to assume jurisdiction of your case even though no written exceptions have been filed. Notice of this action will be mailed to all parties at their last known address. You will be provided with the opportunity to file briefs or other written statements with the Appeals Council about the facts and law relevant to your case. After the Appeals Council receives the briefs or other written statements, or the time allowed (usually 30 days) for submitting them has expired, the Appeals Council will either make a new, independent decision pursuant to § 416.1483(b) or § 416.1483(c), based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record that will be the final decision of the Commissioner after remand, dismiss the request for a hearing, or remand the case to an administrative law judge for further proceedings, including a new decision.

(d) Exceptions are not filed and the Appeals Council does not otherwise assume jurisdiction. If no exceptions are filed and the Appeals Council does not assume jurisdiction of your case, the decision of the administrative law judge or administrative appeals judge becomes the final decision of the Commissioner after remand.

[85 FR 73160, Nov. 16, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 131 cases (89 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Maria Teresa Pupo v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Maria Teresa Pupo v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2021) ca11 · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 416.1484 (a); see also SSA, Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law Man- ual (HALLEX) I-4-8-5A (2020) (explaining that when there is a district court remand, the claimant files written exceptions rather than a request for review).”
Ryan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (2017) ohsd · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484 (d) (stating that, in a case remanded by a federal court, "[i]f no exceptions are filed and the Appeals Council does not assume jurisdiction of [the] case, the decision of the [ALJ] becomes the final decision of the Commissioner after remand"); see also…”
Hulsey v. Astrue (2010) ca8 · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484 (b)(3). The Appeals Council adopted the ALJ’s discussion of the medical evidence.”
Jamie Cosenza v. Nancy A. Berryhill (2017) ca7 · cites it 4× “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484 . If Cosenza opted not to ask the Appeals Council for review, the ALJ advised, she could proceed to federal court—after giving the Appeals Council 60 days to decide on its own accord whether to review the case.”
Rob Caudill v. Commissioner of Social Securit (2011) ca6 · cites it 2× “The social security regulations provide that “when a case is remanded by a Federal court for further consideration, the decision of the administrative law judge will become the final decision of the Commissioner after remand on your case unless the Appeals Council assumes…”
Oliver BUCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee (1991) ca6 “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484 (Appeals Council decision is the final decision of the Secretary).”
Santos v. Chater (1996) mad “§ 405 (g) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484 (a) and (d). The term “final” never refers to the decision of the district court on review.”
JANEZICH v. Barnhart (2006) ilnd “984 (a); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484 (a)(d). • RELEVANT FACTS 3 Ms.”
Lewis-Money v. Commissioner of Social Security (2015) ohsd · cites it 2× “Plaintiff did not seek Appeals Council review of'this second ALJ decision/ See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484 (d) (in a case remanded by a Federal Court, “[i]f no exceptions are filed and the Appeals Couhcil does not assume jurisdiction of [the] case, the decision of the [ALJ] becomes the…”
Burr v. Bowen (1992) ilnd “Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484 (c) (1991). The Secretary did not report the ALJ’s findings back to the court.”
Jamie Cosenza v. Nancy A. Berryhill (2017) ca7 · cites it 4× “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484 . If Cosenza opted not to ask the Appeals Council for review, the ALJ advised, she could proceed to federal court—after giving the Appeals Council 60 days to decide on its own accord whether to review the case.”
Kamoku v. O'Malley (2024) hid · cites it 4× “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484 (a). These written exceptions must be filed within 30 days of receipt of the ALJ’s decision.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484(d) — 1 case
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.