C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER III—SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION › PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED › Subpart I—Determining Disability and Blindness

20 C.F.R. § 416.932

When presumptive payments begin and end

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

We may make payments to you on the basis of presumptive disability or presumptive blindness before we make a formal determination about your disability or blindness. The payments can not be made for more than 6 months. They start for a period of not more than 6 months beginning in the month we make the presumptive disability or presumptive blindness finding. The payments end the earliest of—

(a) The month in which we make a formal finding on whether or not you are disabled or blind;

(b) The month for which we make the sixth monthly payment based on presumptive disability or presumptive blindness to you; or

(c) The month in which you no longer meet one of the other eligibility requirements (e.g., your income exceeds the limits).

[45 FR 55621, Aug. 20, 1980, as amended at 57 FR 53853, Nov. 13, 1992]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1981–1987 · leading case: Lloyd Thompson v. Richard S. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lloyd Thompson v. Richard S. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1982). · cites it 4× “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.932 (a) (1980) (revised *940 and recodified 1981).”
Ruppert v. Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 671 F. Supp. 151 (E.D.N.Y. 1987). “973 (c) (1986) (formerly codified at 20 C.F.R. § 416.932 (c) (1980)), letters from Lisa Volpe of the Contemporary Guidance Services indicate that the goal of Ruppert’s training was not competitive employment, of which she was not capable, but rather simply that she be able to…”
Bertha M. Brenner v. Richard Schweiker, 711 F.2d 96 (8th Cir. 1983). “973 (c) (1983) (formerly codified at 20 C.F.R. § 416.932 (e) (1980)) provides: (c) If your work is done under special conditions.”
Boulton v. Harris, 518 F. Supp. 828 (D. Utah 1981). “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.932 (1980). The court holds that the finding of the ALJ that “[cjlaimant has demonstrated an ability to engage in substantial gainful work,” R.”
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.