20 C.F.R. § 416.1489
Good cause for reopening
(a) We will find that there is good cause to reopen a determination or decision if—
(1) New and material evidence is furnished;
(2) A clerical error was made; or
(3) The evidence that was considered in making the determination or decision clearly shows on its face that an error was made.
(b) We will not find good cause to reopen your case if the only reason for reopening is a change of legal interpretation or administrative ruling upon which the determination or decision was made.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Olivia Kneeland v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Cmsnr
Olivia Kneeland v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Cmsnr (2017)
“The regulations for SSI benefits define "good cause” at 20 C.F.R. § 416.1489 , and are substantially the same.”
Jean D. Byam v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2003)
“20 C.F.R. § 416.1489 . Byam makes no showing that the ALJ ruled on the merits of the earlier evidence, *181 and nothing in the record indicates that the ALJ’s disability determination was based on anything other than evidence submitted as part of the 1996 application.”
Maria Gutierrez and Ramon Gutierrez v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services (1990)
“By letter dated July 28,1986, the SSA notified the Gutierrezes that it was reopening the case pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.1489 (1989) because it concluded that “the evidence which the Administrative Law Judge considered clearly shows on its face that an error was made in his…”
Gutierrez v. Bowen (1989)
“1488 , which provides that a decision may be reopened within two years after the date of the initial pre-hearing determination for good cause as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.1489 . The good cause relied upon was that “the evidence which the [AU] considered clearly shows on its…”
Roesch v. Apfel (1998)
“20 C.F.R. § 416.1489 (a). 4 The “date of the notice of the initial determination” on the 1994 application was September 1, 1994 (Tr.”
Wilson v. Heckler (1985)
“-1489, to reopen the case____ 20 C.F.R. § 416.1489 (a)(3) and (b) (1983): (a) We will find that there is good cause to reopen a determination or decision if— (3) The evidence that was considered in making the determination or decision clearly shows on its face that an error was…”
Finan v. Barnhart (2004)
“She merely challenges the ALJ’s decision to not reopen the 1998 claim, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.1489 . Absent a constitutional claim, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to reopen the 1998 claim.”
Chalmers v. Sullivan (1993)
“20 C.F.R. § 416.1489 (a); see also Singer v.”
Pulido v. Heckler (1983)
“1482 (good cause for extension of time to file action in Federal District Court); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1489 (good *631 cause for reopening a decision or determination of the Secretary).”
Cosby v. Astrue (2013)
“Cosby noted that he had received the district court’s judgment four weeks after it was entered and did “not know the specific time limit or the specific reopening rules of the Courts.”
Koolstra v. Sullivan (1990)
“” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1489 (b). III. Notice. In addition to the Appeals Council’s failure to abide by the regulatory limits on the scope of its power to reopen, Koolstra received no notice of the Appeals Council’s intention to reopen until after the revised decision was issued, nor…”
Benner v. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2020)
“20 C.F.R. § 416.1489 (a). The SSA will not find good cause “if the only reason for reopening is a change of legal interpretation or administrative ruling upon which the determination or decision was made.”
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.