20 C.F.R. § 416.1487

Reopening and revising determinations and decisions

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

(a) General. Generally, if you are dissatisfied with a determination or decision made in the administrative review process, but do not request further review within the stated time period, you lose your right to further review and that determination or decision becomes final. However, a determination or a decision made in your case which is otherwise final and binding may be reopened and revised by us.

(b) Procedure for reopening and revision. We may reopen a final determination or decision on our own initiative, or you may ask that a final determination or a decision to which you were a party be reopened. In either instance, if we reopen the determination or decision, we may revise that determination or decision. The conditions under which we may reopen a previous determination or decision, either on our own initiative or at your request, are explained in § 416.1488.

[59 FR 8535, Feb. 23, 1994]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Willie Ousley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Willie Ousley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (2018) ca6 · cites it 2× “996 and 20 CFR 416.1487–416.1494.” Social Security Ruling 16-1p, 81 Fed.”

Olivia Kneeland v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Cmsnr (2017) ca5 “The district court, accepting the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, found that 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1487 and 416.1488 allowed the Appeals Council to reopen its decision because it did so within two years of the initial determination and there was “good cause” under § 416.”

Carter v. Colvin (2016) kyed “996 and 20 CFR 416.1487 — 416.1494.” SSR 16-lp n.”

Silvis v. Heckler (1984) pawd · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 416.1487 (a) (1983). (b) Procedure for reopening and revision.”

Bruce v. Berryhill (2018) paed “In his decision, the ALJ addressed plaintiff's subsequent, successful SSI claim as follows: In that more than two years have passed since the State agency issued a favorable determination on January 22, 2015, finding the claimant disabled beginning December 16, 2014, based on…”

Warren E. DeLONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee (1985) ca7 “1984) (construing identical language in 20 C.F.R. § 416.1487 (a) relating to applications for supplemental security income benefits); but see Munsinger v.”

Singer v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1983) nysd “-1488(b) in light of the preceding section, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1487 . That section provides: (a) General.”

Britton v. Astrue (2008) mnd “In that instance, the claimant must seek to reopen the decision pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.1487 . Indeed, in Plaintiffs case, the Appeals Council treated Plaintiffs letter and submission of new evidence as a request to reopen his case under § 416.”

McLachlan v. Astrue (2010) ilnd “20 C.F.R. § 416.1487 . First, the claimant may request that a decision be reopened within twelve months of notice of the initial determination for any reason.”

Wills v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1987) miwd “2 However, in light of the court’s opinion, plaintiffs counsel may wish to consider petitioning the Secretary to reopen the original application pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.1487 et seq., in order to obtain greater benefits based upon an earlier disability onset.”

Wilson v. Heckler (1985) mtd “3 The regulations are as follows: *901 20 C.F.R. § 416.1487 (a) and (b) (1983): (a) General .”

Roesch v. Apfel (1998) ned “”) with 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1487 (a), 416.1488(b) & 416.”

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.