C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 32—PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' DEATH, DISABILITY, AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS › Subpart C—Disability Benefit Claims

28 C.F.R. § 32.24

PSOB Office determination

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

(a) Upon its approving or denying a claim, the PSOB Office shall serve notice of the same upon the claimant (and upon any other claimant who may have filed a claim with respect to the same public safety officer). Such notice shall—

(1) Specify the factual findings and legal conclusions that support it; and

(2) In the event of a denial, provide information as to—

(i) Requesting a Hearing Officer determination; or

(ii) As applicable, moving to reconsider a negative disability finding.

(b) Upon a claimant's failure (without reasonable justification or excuse) to pursue in timely fashion the determination of his filed claim, the Director may, at his discretion, deem the same to be abandoned, as though never filed. Not less than thirty-three days prior thereto, the PSOB Office shall serve the claimant with notice of the Director's intention to exercise such discretion.

[71 FR 46037, Aug. 10, 2018, as amended at 83 FR 22386, May 15, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases, 1983–2015 · leading case: Julie Amber-Messick, Adm'x of the Est. of Christopher Kangas, Deceased v. United States, 483 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Julie Amber-Messick, Adm'x of the Est. of Christopher Kangas, Deceased v. United States, 483 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “may, within 30 days after notification of the hearing officer’s determination: (i) request the BJA Director to review the record and the hearing officer’s determination .”
Hawkins v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 74 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 6× “See 28 C.F.R. § 32.24 (a). B. Decision Of A Bureau Of Justice Assistance Hearing Officer.”
Maria Demutiis & Nicolas Demutiis v. United States, 291 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 32.24 (c) (2001). The Court of Federal Claims interpreted this provision as imposing on the hearing officer an “active and affirmative responsibility to develop the record.”
Yanco v. United States, 258 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 32.24 . . Pursuant to 28 C.F.”
Groff v. United States, 493 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 32.24 (2006). Although the hearing is not governed by formal rules of procedure, the hearing officer is required to conduct the hearing “in such manner as to best ascertain the rights of the claimant” and is required to “receive such relevant evidence as may be…”
Durco v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 424 (Ct. Cl. 1988). · cites it 5× “28 C.F.R. § 32.24 (a) and (c). The hearing officer is required to receive all relevant evidence preferred by the claimant, as well as “such other evidence as the hearing officer may determine to be necessary or useful in evaluating the claim.”
Calvin Hawkins & Donna L. Hawkins v. United States, 469 F.3d 993 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Plaintiffs appealed the Hearing Officer’s determination to the BJA Director pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 32.24 on February 10, 2004. In the absence of a Final Decision by the Director, plaintiffs filed a complaint on November 19, 2004 in the Court of Federal Claims seeking the…”
Tafoya v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 256 (Ct. Cl. 1985). · cites it 3× “On January 26, 1981, plaintiff and her husband (claimants) requested an oral hearing pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 32.24 . 4 Claimants requested such a hearing to show that they had presented sufficient evidence to prove that their son died in the line of duty.”
Yanco v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 782 (Fed. Cl. 2000). · cites it 4× “Bureau Regulations ( 28 C.F.R. § 32.24 ) require the Hearing Officer to “conduct the hearing in such manner as to best ascertain the rights of the claimant.”
Demutiis v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 81 (Fed. Cl. 2000). · cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 32.24 (c). In addition, the regulation states that, at such a hearing, the hearing officer is not limited to the evidence introduced by the claimant, but “shall, in addition, receive such other evidence as the hearing officer may determine to be necessary or useful…”
Bice v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 420 (Fed. Cl. 2004). · cites it 2× “Bice requested an oral hearing under 28 C.F.R. § 32.24 . AR, Vol. 1, Tab 19. He claimed that Hearing Officer West had stated that such a hearing would be allowed in the event of a final agency decision denying Mr.”
Cartwright v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 238 (Ct. Cl. 1989). · cites it 3× “A hearing was held on December 17, 1985, see 28 C.F.R. § 32.24 (a), at which plaintiff presented documentary evidence and two witnesses who testified in support of her claim for benefits.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 32.24(h) — 1 case
Winuk v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 207 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
— 28 C.F.R. § 32.24(h)(2) — 1 case
Hillensbeck v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 369 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
— 28 C.F.R. § 32.24(i)(1)(i) — 2 cases
Julie Amber-Messick, Adm'x of the Est. of Christopher Kangas, Deceased v. United States, 483 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “may, within 30 days after notification of the hearing officer’s determination: (i) request the BJA Director to review the record and the hearing officer’s determination .”
Amber-Messick, Adm'x of the Est. of Christopher Kangas, Deceased v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2007).
— 28 C.F.R. § 32.24(i)(l)(i) — 1 case
Julie Amber-Messick, Adm'x of the Est. of Christopher Kangas, Deceased v. United States, 483 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “may, within 30 days after notification of the hearing officer’s determination: (i) request the BJA Director to review the record and the hearing officer’s determination .”
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.