20 C.F.R. § 702.317

Preparation and transfer of the case for hearing

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

A case is prepared for transfer in the following manner:

(a) The district director will furnish each of the parties or their representatives with a copy of a prehearing statement form.

(b) Each party must, within 21 days after receipt of such form, complete it and return it to the district director and serve copies on all other parties. Extensions of time for good cause may be granted by the district director.

(c) Upon receipt of the completed forms, the district director, after checking them for completeness and after any further conferences that, in his or her opinion, are warranted, will transmit them to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge by letter of transmittal together with all available evidence which the parties intend to submit at the hearings (exclusive of X-rays, slides and other materials not suitable for transmission which may be offered into evidence at the time of the hearing); the materials transmitted must not include any recommendations expressed or memoranda prepared by the district director pursuant to § 702.316.

(d) If the completed pre-hearing statement forms raise new or additional issues not previously considered by the district director or indicate that material evidence will be submitted that could reasonably have been made available to the district director before he or she prepared the last memorandum of conference, the district director will transfer the case to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge only after having considered such issues or evaluated such evidence or both and having issued an additional memorandum of conference in conformance with § 702.316.

(e) If a party fails to complete or return his or her pre-hearing statement form within the time allowed, the district director may, at his or her discretion, transmit the case without that party's form. However, such transmittal must include a statement from the district director setting forth the circumstances causing the failure to include the form, and such party's failure to submit a pre-hearing statement form may, subject to rebuttal at the formal hearing, be considered by the administrative law judge, to the extent intransigence is relevant, in subsequent rulings on motions which may be made in the course of the formal hearing.

[80 FR 12930, Mar. 12, 2015]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1982–2010 · leading case: Container Stevedoring Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Programs Albert Gross, 935 F.2d 1544 (9th Cir. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Container Stevedoring Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Programs Albert Gross, 935 F.2d 1544 (9th Cir. 1991). “Although the regulations require the deputy commissioner to consider all new and additional issues raised in the course of proceedings before the case is transferred to the OAU, 20 C.F.R. § 702.317 (d), nothing in the statute or regulations requires the deputy commissioner and…”

Craven v. Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Programs, 604 F.3d 902 (5th Cir. 2010). “See 20 C.F.R. § 702.317 (c). 8 . "The relevant language states that an ALJ has authority 'to hear and determine all questions in respect of such claim' and the phrase ‘such claim’ references 'a claim for compensation.”

Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Asbestos Health, 17 F.3d 130 (5th Cir. 1994). “20 C.F.R. § 702.317 . However, if it becomes apparent that the claim cannot be settled amicably, or on application of an interested party, the Director’s discretion ends and she must refer the case to the OALJ for a hearing.”

Am. Bridge Div. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 679 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1982). “20 C.F.R. § 702.317 (c), (d). The testimony presented before the ALJ did not implicate the issue: it did not indicate that any of the prior injuries sustained by the claimant had resulted in a “permanent partial disability,” one of the prerequisites for the application of…”

Cornell Univ. v. Velez, 856 F.2d 402 (1st Cir. 1988). “1 In so holding, the AU acknowledged that Cornell, despite the specific requirement of 20 C.F.R. § 702.317 to the contrary, had not raised the possible applicability of section 908(f) in its LS-18 pre-hearing statement.”

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.