20 C.F.R. § 650.4
Review of State law and criteria for review of State compliance
(a) A State law will satisfy the requirements of § 650.3(a) if it contains a provision requiring, or is construed to require, hearing and decision for claimants who are parties to an administrative appeal affecting benefit rights with the greatest promptness that is administratively feasible.
(b) A State will be deemed to comply substantially with the State law requirements set forth in § 650.3(a) with respect to first level appeals, the State has issued at least 60 percent of all first level benefit appeal decisions within 30 days of the date of appeal, and at least 80 percent of all first level benefit appeal decisions within 45 days. These computations will be derived from the State's regular reports required pursuant to the Unemployment Compensation Manual, part III, sections 4400-4450.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1978–2016 · leading case: Acosta v. Brown, 213 Cal. App. 4th 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
Acosta v. Brown, 213 Cal. App. 4th 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “” ( 20 C.F.R. § 650.4 (b) (2012).) California Does Not Comply with the Federal- Timeliness Requirements The trial court received abundant undisputed evidence California has been unable to meet federal timeliness standards for processing UI claims and appeals for more than a…”
Sondra Irving v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2016). “20 C.F.R. § 650.4 (b) (2013). Needless to say, the wheels of justice often spin more slowly in criminal cases.”
Dunn v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 474 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “20 C.F.R. § 650.4 , 650.5. In 1972 the Department of Labor provided that any state which had not decided 50% of all first level appeals in 30 days, 75% in 45 days and 90% in 75 days, submit an immediate plan of action outlining how it would come into compliance with the federal…”
Millar v. N.M. Dep't of Workforce Solutions, 2013 NMCA 55 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). “Accordingly, 20 C.F.R. § 650.4 (b) states: A State will be deemed to comply substantially with the State law requirements set forth in § 650.”
Gray v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 681 P.2d 807 (Utah 1984). “[29] 20 C.F.R. § 650.4 (b). [30] See Wilson v.”
Rue v. K-Mart Corp., 691 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). “NOTES [1] In its amicus curiae brief, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review recites the following Department of Labor timeliness standards: sixty percent and eighty percent of referee decisions should be issued within thirty and forty-five days, respectively, from the…”
Joseph Wilkinson v. Maurice Abrams, 627 F.2d 650 (3rd Cir. 1980). “20 C.F.R. § 650.4 (b). As noted earlier, this regulation requires that 60% of all first level appeals be disposed of within 30 days and 80% within 45 days.”
Millar v. New Mexico Dep't of Workforce Solutions, 2013 NMCA 055 (N.M. 2013). “Accordingly, 20 C.F.R. § 650.4 (b) states: A State will be deemed to comply substantially with the State law requirements set forth in § 650.”
N.M. Dep't of Workforce Solutions v. Garduno, 2014 NMCA 50 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “We concluded that “the plain language of 20 C.F.R. § 650.4 (b) does not establish any mandatory statutory time limit that would require [the claimant] to be notified of the pending appeal or within which the hearing had to be held[,]” but instead offers only “guidelines in…”
Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Emp. Servs. v. Smallwood, 26 A.3d 711 (D.C. 2011). “” 20 C.F.R. § 650.4 (b) (2006). . It remains undisputed that DOES overpaid Smallwood in the amount of $13,767, and we uphold the portion of OAH's Order so finding.”
New Mexico Dep't of Workforce Solutions v. Garduño, 2014 NMCA 050 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “We concluded that “the plain language of 20 C.F.R. § 650.4 (b) does not establish any mandatory statutory time limit that would require [the claimant] to be notified of the pending appeal or within which the hearing had to be held[,]” but instead offers only “guidelines in…”
Dunn v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 594 F. Supp. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). “20 C.F.R. § 650.4 (b). 2 . The Municipal Labor Committee is an association of local unions of employees of the City of New York and related employers such as the Transit Authority, Health and Hospital Corporation, Housing Authority, Off-Track Betting, Board of Education, Board…”
— 20 C.F.R. § 650.4(b) — 1 case
Acosta v. Brown, 213 Cal. App. 4th 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “” ( 20 C.F.R. § 650.4 (b) (2012).) California Does Not Comply with the Federal- Timeliness Requirements The trial court received abundant undisputed evidence California has been unable to meet federal timeliness standards for processing UI claims and appeals for more than a…”
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.