20 C.F.R. § 416.305

You must file an application to receive supplemental security income benefits

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

(a) General rule. In addition to meeting other requirements, you must file an application to become eligible to receive benefits. If you believe you may be eligible, you should file an application as soon as possible. Filing an application will—

(1) Permit us to make a formal determination whether or not you are eligible to receive benefits;

(2) Assure that you receive benefits for any months you are eligible to receive payment; and

(3) Give you the right to appeal if you disagree with the determination.

(b) Exceptions. You need not file a new application if—

(1) You have been receiving benefits as an eligible spouse and are no longer living with your husband or wife;

(2) You have been receiving benefits as an eligible spouse of an eligible individual who has died;

(3) You have been receiving benefits because you are disabled or blind and you are 65 years old before the date we determine that you are no longer blind or disabled.

(4) A redetermination of your eligibility is being made and it is found that you were not eligible for benefits during any part of a period for which we are making a redetermination but you currently meet the requirements for eligibility;

(5) You are notified that your payments of SSI benefits will be stopped because you are no longer eligible and you again meet the requirements for eligibility before your appeal rights are exhausted.

[45 FR 48120, July 18, 1980, as amended at 60 FR 16374, Mar. 30, 1995; 64 FR 31972, June 15, 1999]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Crane v. Shalala

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Crane v. Shalala (1996) ca9 “350 , to obtain them a claimant must actually file an application, 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.305 & .310. Crane made no showing that he ever filed an application.”

Beliveau Ex Rel. Beliveau v. Apfel (2001) mad “20 C.F.R. § 416.305 . Mrs. Beliveau applied for bene *94 fits on behalf of Raymond on February 27, 1996, with a protective filing date of January 17, 1996, and the ALJ rendered his decision on June 26,1998.”

Fisher v. Astrue (2011) waed “20 C.F.R. §§ 416.305 , 416.330(a); S.S.R.”

Linda Williams v. Comm Social Security (2009) ca3 “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.305 , 416.335. 2 . Under Social Security regulations, medium work "involves lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds.”

Skeens v. Shalala (1994) vawd “20 C.F.R. 416.305 (1993). . The regulations are veiy clear in this regard.”

Brunetti v. Massanari (2001) ca2 “350 , to obtain them a claimant must actually file an application, 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.305 & .310.”). Tavel thus neglected to plead an essential element of his cause of action and his complaint was properly dismissed.”

United States v. Smith (2003) mied “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.305 . To constitute a valid claim for benefits, an application must be: (1) on an application form prescribed by the SSA; (2) filed with the SSA or at another office designated by the SSA; and (3) signed by “the claimant or someone who may sign an application…”

(SS) Aguilera v. Commissioner of Social Security (2023) caed · cites it 2× “4 In any event benefits would be payable no earlier than the month following her filing date of January 22, 2019 26 regardless of her disability onset date because, unlike claims for disability insurance benefits (which are payable retroactively to disability onset, and hinge in…”

Anthony v. Saul (2025) ca2 · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.305 (a) (stating that an individual “must file an application to become eligible to receive benefits”).”

(SS) Lamb v. Commissioner of Social Security (2022) caed “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.305 (a), 416.330(a); 20 C.”

Mikell v. Commissioner of Social Security (2021) flmd “351 does not apply because the SSA “did not misinform Plaintiff about his eligibility.”

Mounts v. SSA (2020) kyed “ALJ Mangus chose to lean on the more recent examination-based opinion of a doctor, trained in the relevant field, rather than blindly 8 ALJ Mangus considered Mounts’s application for a period distinct from ALJ York’s review.”

Show all 19 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.