20 C.F.R. § 650.3
Secretary's interpretation of Federal law requirements
(a) The Secretary interprets sections 303(a)(1) and 303(a)(3) above to require that a State law include provision for—
(1) Hearing and decision for claimants who are parties to an appeal from a benefit determination to an administrative tribunal with the greatest promptness that is administratively feasible, and
(2) Such methods of administration of the appeals process as will reasonably assure hearing and decision with the greatest promptness that is administratively feasible.
(b) The Secretary interprets section 303(b)(2) above to require a State to comply substantially with provisions specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1979–2013 · leading case: Joseph Wilkinson v. Maurice Abrams, 627 F.2d 650 (3rd Cir. 1980).
Joseph Wilkinson v. Maurice Abrams, 627 F.2d 650 (3rd Cir. 1980). “” 20 C.F.R. § 650.3 (a). The Wilkinson class contends that this regulation condones or fosters undue delays in the processing and decision of second level administrative appeals in state unemployment compensation programs.”
Rue v. K-Mart Corp., 691 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). “See, 20 C.F.R. § 650.3 . [1] Our legislature and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review has also set strict standards to insure prompt payment of unemployment compensation benefits.”
Millar v. N.M. Dep't of Workforce Solutions, 2013 NMCA 55 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). “” 20 C.F.R. § 650.3 (a)(2). Further, the secretary of labor has construed 42 U.”
Cosby v. Ward, 843 F.2d 967 (7th Cir. 1988). “The Social Security Act The plaintiffs argue that instead of serving to make IDES more efficient, the rules of thumb actually hindered the state’s eligibility determinations, slowing *982 them down so much as to violate the “when due” provision of the Social Security Act.”
Millar v. New Mexico Dep't of Workforce Solutions, 2013 NMCA 055 (N.M. 2013). “” 20 C.F.R. § 650.3 (a)(2). Further, the secretary of labor has construed 42 U.”
Wilkinson v. Abrams, 473 F. Supp. 246 (E.D. Pa. 1979). “, at § 503(b); 20 C.F.R. § 650.3 (a). Rather than constituting a hard-and-fast criterion which vests the state with a right to federal funds if it is met, the percentage-promptness criteria should be viewed simply as guidelines established for the convenience of the various…”
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.