(a) This standard is responsive to the overriding concern of the U.S. Supreme Court in California Department of Human Resources v. Java, 402 U.S. 121 (1971), and that of other courts with delay in payment of unemployment compensation to eligible individuals, including delays caused specifically by the adjudication process. The standard seeks to assure that all administrative appeals affecting benefit rights are heard and decided with the greatest promptness that is administratively feasible.
(b) Sections 303(a) (1) and (3) of the Social Security Act require, as a condition for the receipt of granted funds, that State laws include provisions for methods of administration reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due, and opportunity for a fair hearing for all individuals whose claims for unemployment compensation are denied. The Secretary has construed these provisions to require, as a condition for receipt of granted funds, that State laws include provisions for hearing and deciding appeals for all unemployment insurance claimants who are parties to an administrative benefit appeal with the greatest promptness that is administratively feasible. What is the greatest promptness that is administratively feasible in an individual case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. For example, the greatest promptness that is administratively feasible will be longer in cases that involve interstate appeals, complex issues of fact or law, reasonable requests by parties for continuances or rescheduling of hearings or other unforeseen and uncontrollable factors than it will be for other cases.
(c) In addition, the Secretary has construed section 303(b)(2) of the Social Security Act as requiring States to comply substantially with the required provisions of State law. The Secretary considers as substantial compliance the issuance of minimum percentages of first level benefit appeal decisions within the periods of time specified in § 650.4.
(d) Although the interpretation of Federal law requirements in § 650.3 below applies to both first and second level administrative benefit appeals, the criteria for review of State compliance in § 650.3(b) apply only to first level benefit appeals.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases, 1978–2014 · leading case:
Gary v. Nichols, 447 F. Supp. 320 (D. Idaho 1978).
Gary v. Nichols, 447 F. Supp. 320 (D. Idaho 1978).
· cites it 5× “§ 1983 , in that the administration of claims is not calculated to insure full payment of benefits when due; and (4) that the granting of repeated continuances of the final redetermination hearing was unreasonable, arbitrary and a violation of 20 C.F.R. § 650.1 (b) and 42 U.S.C.…”
Joseph Wilkinson v. Maurice Abrams, 627 F.2d 650 (3rd Cir. 1980).
· cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 650.1 (b). 4 The regulations further state that the Secretary’s interpretation applies to both first and second level administrative appeals.”
Millar v. N.M. Dep't of Workforce Solutions, 2013 NMCA 55 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “DISCUSSION {5} DWS raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court exceeded its authority in holding that the Tribunal violated the timeliness requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 650.1 to 650.4 (2006, as amended through 2013) and Section 51-1-8(D); and (2) whether the…”
Acosta v. Brown, 213 Cal. App. 4th 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
“” ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 650.1 , 650.3(a) (2012).) In California, the unemployment insurance (UI) program consists of three phases: (1) UI claims are submitted to and initially processed by the Employment Development Department (EDD) (Unemp.”
Dunn v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 474 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 650.1 . Regulations were developed which direct states to (1) provide first level appeals with maximum promptness; (2) adopt methods of administration reasonably designed to assure such promptness; and (3) include provision in state law for (1) and (2).”
Millar v. New Mexico Dep't of Workforce Solutions, 2013 NMCA 055 (N.M. 2013).
· cites it 2× “DISCUSSION DWS raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court exceeded its authority in holding that the Tribunal violated the timeliness requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 650.1 to 650.4 (2006, as amended through 2013) and Section 51 -1 -8(D); and (2) whether the…”
United States Steel Corp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 817 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003).
“See 20 C.F.R. § 650.1 (2001). . Additionally, we note that the Board persuasively argues that the Ehman case "could arguably encourage employers and employees to contrive a de minimis wage concession, calculated to double unemployment benefit entitlement and supplement generous…”
N.M. Dep't of Workforce Solutions v. Garduno, 2014 NMCA 50 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “In Millar, we recently concluded that the timeliness requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 650.1 to 650.4 (2006, as amended through 2013) and Section 51-1-8(D), and the doctrine of equitable estoppel do not preclude DWS from recovering overpayments after the claimant has been…”
New Mexico Dep't of Workforce Solutions v. Garduño, 2014 NMCA 050 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “In Millar, we recently concluded that the timeliness requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 650.1 to 650.4 (2006, as amended through 2013) and Section 51-1-8(D), and the doctrine of equitable estoppel do not preclude DWS from recovering overpayments after the claimant has been…”
Wilkinson v. Abrams, 81 F.R.D. 52 (E.D. Pa. 1978).
“The standards formulated and applied by the Labor Secretary in making his determination of a state’s eligibility for certification are found in 20 C.F.R. 650.1, et seq. Regulation 650.3(a)(2) states that an unemployment compensation program will satisfy the requirements of…”
NM Dep't of Workforce Solutions v. Garduno (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “In Millar, we recently concluded that the timeliness requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 650.1 to 650.4 (2006, as amended through 2013) and Section 51-1-8(D), and the doctrine of equitable estoppel do not preclude DWS from recovering overpayments after the claimant has been…”
— 20 C.F.R. § 650.1(b) — 1 case
— 20 C.F.R. § 650.1(c) — 1 case
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.