(a) Section 303(a)(1). The Secretary interprets section 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act to require that a State law include provision for such methods of administration as will reasonable insure the full payment of unemployment benefits to eligible claimants with the greatest promptness that is administratively feasible.
(b) Section 303(b)(2). (1) The Secretary interprets section 303(b)(2) of the Social Security Act to require that, in the administration of a State law, there shall be substantial compliance with the provision required by section 303(a)(1).
(2) The greatest promptness that is administratively feasible will depend upon the circumstances in each State that impacts upon its performance in paying benefits. Factors reasonably beyond a State's control may cause its performance to drop below the level of adequacy expressed in the table below as criteria for substantial compliance applicable to all States. Where it is demonstrated that failure to meet the criteria of adequacy is attributable to factors reasonably beyond the State's control and, in light of those factors, the State has performed at the highest level administratively feasible, it will be considered that the State is in substantial compliance with the Standard for conformity. Whether or not the State is in substantial compliance, the remedial provisions of §§ 640.7 and 640.8 will be applicable when the pertinent criteria are not met.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case:
Pennington v. Didrickson, 22 F.3d 1376 (7th Cir. 1994).
Pennington v. Didrickson, 22 F.3d 1376 (7th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. § 640.3 (a). Although “[f]ederal laws provide no authority for the Secretary of Labor to determine the eligibility of individuals under a State law,” the regulations make clear that “implicit in prompt performance with respect to benefit payments is the corresponding…”
Arteaga v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 781 P.2d 98 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
“And, once the supreme court resolved the issue of claimant’s monetary eligibility, a prerequisite to a claimant being entitled to any benefits, the Division promptly moved forward on the administrative processing of the entitlement issue.”
Pennington v. Doherty, 110 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. § 640.3 (a). Had we accepted Illinois’ contention in Pennington I that the definition of base period was an eligibility requirement rather than an administrative provision, section 237 would not have been subject to the “when due” clause.”
Gann v. Richardson, 43 F. Supp. 3d 896 (S.D. Ind. 2014).
“" 20 C.F.R. § 640.3 (a) (emphasis added). .”
Islam v. Cuomo (E.D.N.Y 2020).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 640.3 (a). To that end, the regulations demand that the state “obtain promptly and prior to a determination of an individual’s right to benefits, such facts pertaining thereto as will be sufficient reasonably to insure the payment of benefits when due.”
Islam v. Cuomo (E.D.N.Y 2022).
“(citing 20 C.F.R. § 640.3 (a).) Moreover, the regulation directs states to “obtain promptly and prior to a determination of an individual’s right to benefits, such facts pertaining thereto as will be sufficient reasonably to insure the payment of benefits when due.”
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.