20 C.F.R. § 422.605

Request for review

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

We will review an assignment if you request review and show that there is a prima facie case of error regarding the assignment. This review is a review on the record and will not entail a face-to-face hearing. We will review an assignment if:

(a) You are an assigned operator (or related person);

(b) Your request is in writing and states your reasons for believing the assignment is erroneous;

(c) Your request is filed with us no later than 30 days from the date you received the detailed information described in § 422.604, or no later than 30 days from the date you received the notice of assignment if you choose not to request detailed information. Unless you submit evidence showing a later receipt of the notice, we will assume you received the detailed information or the notice of assignment within 5 days of the date shown thereon. We will consider the request to be filed as of the date we receive it. However, if we receive the request after the 30-day period, the postmark date on the envelope may be used as the filing date. If there is no postmark or the postmark is illegible, the filing date will be deemed to be the fifth day prior to the day we received the request; and

(d) Your request is accompanied by evidence establishing a prima facie case of error regarding the assignment. If your request for review includes a request for additional time to submit such evidence, we will give you an additional 90 days from the date of your request for review to submit such evidence to us.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1998–2007 · leading case: Usx Corporation and U.S. Steel Mining Company, Inc. v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Usx Corporation and U.S. Steel Mining Company, Inc. v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security (2004) ca3 “Appellants final argument on this point-that the Commissioner waived any timeliness defense she may have had by providing the earnings records-is belied by the record, which establishes that the Commissioner mistakenly mailed the earnings records to appellants.”

United States Steel Corp. v. Astrue (2007) ca11 “20 C.F.R. § 422.605 . When a review is completed, the SSA’s decision is final.”

Association of Bituminous Contractors, Inc. v. Apfel (1998) cadc “§ 9706 (f); 20 C.F.R. § 422.605 (1998). We think that procedure further underscores the reasonableness of the Commissioner’s inclusion of coal construction companies within the “coal industry” in that it protects the Association’s members against erroneous assignment of…”

Dixie Fuel Co. v. Commissioner of Social Security (1999) ca6 “See 20 C.F.R. § 422.605 . The Commissioner then reviews the assignments; if he determines that the assignments were in error, he has the authority to declare them void and to reassign the beneficiaries to the appropriate signatory operator or related entity.”

Berwind Corp. v. Commissioner of Social Secutity (2002) ca3 “See 20 C.F.R. § 422.605 . If the Commissioner finds that the assignments were in error, he can declare them void and reassign the bene *239 ficiaries to the appropriate signatory operator or related person.”

Shenango Inc v. Comm Social Security (2002) ca3 “See 20 C.F.R. § 422.605 . If the Commissioner finds that the assignments were in error, he or she can declare them void and reassign the beneficiaries to the appropriate signatory operator or related person.”

USX Corp v. Comm Social Security (2004) ca3 “4 4 For similar reasons, appellants’ contention that the Commissioner violated her own regulations, specifically 20 C.F.R. § 422.605 , is also meritless. 12 2 Appellants next contend that the Commissioner violated her own internal operating procedures, specifically the…”

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.