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. § 416.1488

Conditions for reopening

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

A determination, revised determination, decision, or revised decision may be reopened—

(a) Within 12 months of the date of the notice of the initial determination, for any reason;

(b) Within two years of the date of the notice of the initial determination if we find good cause, as defined in § 416.1489, to reopen the case; or

(c) At any time if it was obtained by fraud or similar fault. In determining whether a determination or decision was obtained by fraud or similar fault, we will take into account any physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitations (including any lack of facility with the English language) which you may have had at the time.

[45 FR 52096, Aug. 5, 1980, as amended at 59 FR 1637, Jan. 12, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 87 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Jean D. Byam v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 336 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jean D. Byam v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 336 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2003). · cites it 5× “Therefore, I find that there is no new and material evidence or error on the face of the evidence that would establish good cause for reopening” under 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 (b). However, the ALJ did not inquire whether her applications were denied as the result of “fault” (i.”
Olivia Kneeland v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Cmsnr, 850 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2017). “20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 (b). 45 . The regulations for SSI benefits define "good cause” at 20 C.”
Wilson v. Colvin, 218 F. Supp. 3d 439 (E.D. Pa. 2016). · cites it 3× “The ALJ had declined to reopen these applications because he found that the current application was not filed within two years of the date of the initial determinations of his earlier applications, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 . Plaintiff argues that the ALJ miscalculated…”
Charlie L. HOLLOWAY, Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 724 F.2d 1102 (4th Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “Citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 (b), which provides a two-year statute of limitations for the reopening of a case, the Secretary refused to reopen Holloway’s initial claim, which had been denied three-and-a-half years earlier.”
Silvis v. Heckler, 578 F. Supp. 1401 (W.D. Pa. 1984). · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 (1983). The Secretary places great emphasis upon 20 C.”
McLachlan v. Astrue, 703 F. Supp. 2d 791 (N.D. Ill. 2010). · cites it 4× “ALJ granted Mc-Lachlan’s 2005 application for SSI benefits but specifically declined to reopen Mc-Lachlan’s 1998 application, stating: The determination on the claimant’s pri- or Title XVI application is not being reopened and revised because the current application was not…”
Gutierrez v. Bowen, 702 F. Supp. 1050 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). · cites it 5× “at 131) By letter dated July 28, 1986, the Council notified plaintiffs that it was reopening the AU’s decision pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 , which provides that a decision may be reopened within two years after the date of the initial pre-hearing determination for good…”
Doris Cole, on Behalf of James E. Cole, Deceased v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 288 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2002). “988 (b); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 (b). Here, the initial determinations were made on October 18, 1990, and the ALJ's decision to reopen was issued August 14, 1992.”
Singer v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 566 F. Supp. 204 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). · cites it 3× “The controlling regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 (b), provides in relevant part: Conditions for reopening A determination, revised determination, decision, or revised decision may be reopened— (b) Within two years of the date of the notice of the initial determination if we find…”
Wilburn v. Astrue, 626 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2010). “In 2003, Wilburn reapplied pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 (a) and the SSA again denied her application.”
Cynthia Carrillo-Yeras v. Michael Astrue, 671 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2011). “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 . In certain circumstances, the SSA may revise a determination after the expiration of the time limits in 20 C.”
Virgil L. CRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sec'y OF HEALTH & HUMAN Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 835 F.2d 617 (6th Cir. 1987). “…1983. 20 C.F.R. § 416.335 . . For supplemental security income the periods are 12 months and two years respectively. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 (a), (b).”
Show all 87 citing cases →
20 C.F.R. § 416.1488(a): 1 case
Wiley v. Chater, 967 F. Supp. 446 (D. Kan. 1997).
20 C.F.R. § 416.1488(b): 2 cases
Wiley v. Chater, 967 F. Supp. 446 (D. Kan. 1997).
Moore v. Sullivan, 731 F. Supp. 1009 (D. Kan. 1989).
20 C.F.R. § 416.1488(c): 2 cases
Wiley v. Chater, 967 F. Supp. 446 (D. Kan. 1997).
Barton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 683 F. Supp. 1024 (D.S.C. 1988).
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.