(a) General rule. We consider an application for SSI benefits filed on the day it is received by an employee at any social security office, by someone at another Federal or State office designated to receive applications for us, or by a person we have authorized to receive applications for us.
(b) Exceptions. (1) When we receive an application that is mailed, we will use the date shown by the United States postmark as the filing date if using the date the application is received will result in a loss of benefits. If the postmark is unreadable or there is no postmark, we will use the date the application is signed (if dated) or 5 days before the day we receive the signed application, whichever date is later.
(2) We consider an application to be filed on the date of the filing of a written statement or the making of an oral inquiry under the conditions in §§ 416.340, 416.345 and 416.350.
(3) We will establish a “deemed” filing date of an application in a case of misinformation under the conditions described in § 416.351. The filing date of the application will be a date determined under § 416.351(b).
[45 FR 48120, July 18, 1980, as amended at 51 FR 13493, Apr. 21, 1986; 59 FR 44926, Aug. 31, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
Aznavorian v. Califano, 440 F. Supp. 788 (S.D. Cal. 1977).
Aznavorian v. Califano, 440 F. Supp. 788 (S.D. Cal. 1977).
“20 C.F.R. 416.325. A legitimate governmental purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle the right to travel internationally when there are effective and less drastic means available.”
Steinhoff v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 502 F. Supp. 1313 (E.D. Mich. 1980).
“20 C.F.R. § 416.325 (b) (1979). Accordingly, plaintiff’s proper age for disability determination under Supplemental Security Income is her age in August 1975.”
Edgardo Torres Rodriguez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (11th Cir. 2018).
“370 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.325 ) (2017)) (“[W]e [] consider the period before the filing date under certain circumstances, for example when determining if a claimant met the 12-month duration requirement.”
Wright v. Saul (D.D.C. 2024).
“at 24; 20 C.F.R. § 416.325 (prescribing that an application for SSI benefits is generally deemed filed on the date an employee at any social security office, or other designated official, receives it).”
(SS) Lebeouf v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2020).
“See 20 C.F.R. § 416.325 . Thus, according to the regulations in place at the time Plaintiff’s application was 16 filed, therapists such as Mr.”
McDaniel v. Saul (E.D. Mo. 2019).
“Per 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.325 , 416.927, the Social Security Administration uses the regulations in effect at the time that this claim was filed.”
Al Rubaee v. Berryhill (E.D. Mo. 2019).
“See 20 C.F.R. § 416.325 (b)(2). There being no argument that this case involves a continuing disability review, see Mudge, 2019 WL 3412616 at *5, it is, therefore, the old Section 416.”
Bland v. Saul (E.D. Mo. 2020).
“Per 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.325 , 416.927, the Social Security Administration uses the regulations in effect at the time that this claim was filed.”
Washington v. Saul (E.D. Mo. 2020).
“20 C.F.R. § 416.325 (a). All this is to say that the old regime was not totally abandoned, does in fact apply to Washington’s claims (filed on August 31, 2016), and therefore limits the evidentiary value of Westhoff’s opinions.”
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.