81 FR 13436 - Titles II and XVI: Fraud and Similar Fault Redeterminations Under Sections 205(U) and 1631(E)(7) of the Social Security Act
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 49 (March 14, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 49 (March 14, 2016)
| Page Range | 13436-13438 | |
| FR Document | 2016-05661 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 13436-13438] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-05661] [[Page 13436]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA-2015-0037; Social Security Ruling, SSR 16-1p] Titles II and XVI: Fraud and Similar Fault Redeterminations Under Sections 205(U) and 1631(E)(7) of the Social Security Act AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling (SSR). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of SSR 16-1p. This Ruling provides guidance on how we redetermine entitlement to and eligibility for benefits when there is a reason to believe fraud or similar fault is involved with an individual's application for benefits. DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan O'Brien, Director of Office of Vocational Evaluation and Process Policy in the Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 597-1632 or TTY 410-966-5609, for information about this notice. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not require us to publish this SSR, we are doing so in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1). Through SSRs, we convey to the public SSA precedential decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits programs. We may base SSRs on determinations or decisions made at all levels of administrative adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, or other interpretations of the law and regulations. Although SSRs do not have the same force and effect as statutes or regulations, they are binding on all components of the Social Security Administration. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1). This SSR will remain in effect until we publish a notice in the Federal Register that rescinds it, or we publish a new SSR that replaces or modifies it. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Programs Nos. 96.001, Social Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security-- Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security--Survivors Insurance; 96.006--Supplemental Security Income.) Dated: March 7, 2016. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Policy Interpretation Ruling Social Security Ruling, SSR 16-1p: Titles II And XVI: Fraud and Similar Fault Redeterminations Under Sections 205(u) And 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security Act PURPOSE: This Social Security Ruling (SSR) explains the process we use to redetermine an individual's entitlement to or eligibility for benefits when there is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in that individual's application for benefits.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Fraud and similar fault redeterminations under sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Act are distinct from reopenings as described in 20 CFR 404.987-404.996 and 20 CFR 416.1487-416.1494. Fraud and similar fault redeterminations are also distinct from redeterminations of Supplemental Security Income eligibility under Title XVI of the Act as described in 20 CFR 416.204. CITATIONS: Sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(u), 1383(e)(7), as amended; Regulations No. 4, sections 404.704, 404.708, 404.1512, 404.1520, and 404.1527; Regulations No. 16, sections 416.912, 416.920, 416.924, and 416.927; and Regulations No. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22, section 422.130(b). INTRODUCTION: The Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994, Public Law 103-296, amended the Social Security Act (Act) to add provisions addressing fraud or similar fault. These amendments to sections 205 and 1631 of the Act provide that we must immediately redetermine an individual's entitlement to monthly insurance benefits under title II or eligibility for benefits under title XVI if there is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in the individual's application for such benefits. This legislation requires us to redetermine an individual's entitlement or eligibility unless a United States Attorney, or equivalent State prosecutor, with jurisdiction over potential or actual related criminal cases, certifies, in writing, that there is a substantial risk that such action by SSA with regard to beneficiaries or recipients in a particular investigation would jeopardize the criminal prosecution of a person involved in a suspected fraud. This statute further provides that, when we redetermine entitlement or eligibility, or when we make an initial determination of entitlement or eligibility, we ``shall disregard any evidence if there is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in the providing of such evidence.'' If, after redetermining entitlement to or eligibility for benefits, we determine that without the disregarded evidence, the evidence does not support entitlement or eligibility, we may terminate such entitlement or eligibility and may treat benefits paid based on such evidence as overpayments. This ruling describes the process we use when we redetermine an individual's entitlement or eligibility to receive benefits when there is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in that individual's application for benefits. This ruling applies to all final determinations or decisions on entitlement or eligibility to receive benefits under title II and title XVI of the Act. This ruling does not replace or limit other appropriate standards and criteria for evaluation of claims. POLICY INTERPRETATION: A. General 1. Sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Act provide that we must immediately redetermine an individual's entitlement to monthly insurance benefits under title II or eligibility for benefits under title XVI if there is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in the individual's application for benefits. 2. This legislation requires us to redetermine an individual's entitlement or eligibility unless a United States Attorney, or equivalent State prosecutor, with jurisdiction over potential or actual related criminal cases, certifies, in writing, that there is a substantial risk that our action with regard to beneficiaries or recipients in a particular investigation would jeopardize the criminal prosecution of a person involved in a suspected fraud. 3. When we redetermine a case under sections 205(u) or 1631(e)(7) of the Act, we must disregard evidence if there is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in providing that evidence. 4. We may find that any individual or entity whose actions affect an individual's application for monthly benefits, has committed fraud or similar fault. Examples of any individual or entity include a claimant, beneficiary, auxiliary, recipient, spouse, representative, medical source, translator, interpreter, and representative payee. Sections 205(u) or 1631(e)(7) of the Act do not require that the individual or entity who committed [[Page 13437]] fraud or similar fault, or the individual or entity providing the evidence that involves fraud or similar fault, have a direct relationship to or act on behalf of the claimant, beneficiary, or recipient, or directly or indirectly benefit from the fraud or similar fault. 5. During the redetermination, we will consider evidence that was provided absent fraud or similar fault, and that relates to the individual's entitlement and eligibility from the time of the individual's original allowance, even if that evidence was not presented previously. 6. If, after redetermining an individual's entitlement to monthly insurance benefits under title II or eligibility for benefits under title XVI, we determine that the evidence does not support such entitlement or eligibility, we may terminate such entitlement or eligibility and may treat benefits paid or payments made based on such evidence as overpayments. 7. If an individual disagrees with our finding that the evidence does not support his or her entitlement or eligibility at the time of the original allowance, that individual may appeal our determination or decision. 8. If the individual believes he or she is currently disabled, he or she may file a new application while appealing our determination or decision. 9. If we assess an overpayment, we will apply the provisions of 20 CFR part 404, subpart F (20 CFR 404.501 et seq.), 20 CFR part 416, subpart E (20 CFR 416.501 et seq.). The individual assessed with the overpayment may request that we waive that overpayment, and we will consider such a request under our rules. 10. We will not waive an assessed overpayment if we find that the individual is at fault in causing the overpayment. In determining whether an individual is at fault, we will consider all pertinent circumstances, including the individual's age and intelligence, and any physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitations (including any lack of facility with the English language) the individual has. B. Definitions 1. Fraud. Fraud exists when a person, with the intent to defraud, either makes or causes to be made, a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact for use in determining rights under the Social Security Act; or conceals or fails to disclose a material fact for use in determining rights under the Social Security Act. 2. Similar Fault. As defined in sections 205(u)(2) and 1631(e)(7)(B) of the Act, similar fault is involved with respect to a determination if: ``(A) an incorrect or incomplete statement that is material to the determination is knowingly made; or (B) information that is material to the determination is knowingly concealed.'' 3. Material. This term describes a statement or information, or an omission from a statement or information, that could influence us in determining entitlement to benefits under title II or eligibility for benefits under title XVI of the Act. 4. Knowingly. This term describes a person's awareness or understanding regarding the correctness or completeness of the information he or she provides us, or the materiality of the information he or she conceals from us. 5. Preponderance of Evidence. This term means such relevant evidence that as a whole shows that the existence of a fact to be proven is more likely than not. Preponderance is established by that piece or body of evidence that, when considered, produces the stronger impression and is more convincing as to its truth when weighed against the evidence in opposition. Thus, preponderance does not require that a certain number of pieces of evidence (e.g., five or six) must be present. It is possible that just one piece of evidence may be so convincing that it outweighs more than one piece of evidence in opposition. C. How We Redetermine an Individual's Entitlement or Eligibility Under Sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Act The following steps outline how we redetermine entitlement or eligibility in this SSR. 1. Under sections 205(u) or 1631(e)(7) of the Act, we must immediately redetermine an individual's entitlement to or eligibility for benefits when there is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in an individual's application for benefits. 2. We will disregard any evidence if there is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in the providing of such evidence. a. We will disregard any evidence supplied, prepared, or signed by a source when there is a reason to believe that the source provided the evidence knowing it was incorrect or incomplete or concealed information knowing it was material to the determination, even if it includes a report prepared or signed by another source, such as lab findings and x-rays. b. We will not develop evidence from a source when there is a reason to believe that the source provided evidence knowing it was fraudulent, incorrect, or incomplete. c. In certain circumstances, we may disregard evidence provided by someone who has not committed fraud or similar fault, but whose evidence relies on other evidence involving fraud or similar fault. For example, we may disregard parts of a physician's report that rely on another source's evidence that we disregarded. Depending on the extent to which the physician relied on the disregarded evidence, we may disregard the physician's entire report. d. We may consider evidence we relied on to find fraud or similar fault in one claim in deciding whether there is fraud or similar fault in another claim. We may also consider that evidence in deciding the weight we give to evidence in another claim. e. If we cannot determine whether evidence provided by a source involved fraud or similar fault, we will consider the evidence in accordance with our policies regarding evaluating symptoms and weighing medical source opinions. We will also consider its consistency with the remaining evidence. f. We will document the claim file with a description of the disregarded evidence and the reasons for disregarding the evidence. 3. We will consider the claim only through the date of the final determination or decision on the beneficiary's application for benefits (i.e., the original date of the allowance). We will not develop evidence about new medical conditions or impairments with an onset date after the original date of the allowance. We will not develop information about the recipient's or beneficiary's current state of health. 4. We will accept evidence relevant to the issues we decide during a redetermination. For instance, we will accept evidence that relates to the issue of whether the individual was disabled as defined under the Act at the time of the individual's original allowance. 5. We will consider evidence that postdates the original date of the allowance if that evidence relates to the period at issue. 6. A finding of fraud or similar fault and disregarding evidence based on that finding does not constitute complete adjudicative action on a claim. We will evaluate the remaining evidence in file and determine whether that evidence supports a finding of entitlement to or eligibility for benefits. D. Appeal Rights 1. Initiating a redetermination under sections 205(u) or 1631(e)(7) of the Act is not subject to administrative or judicial review. [[Page 13438]] 2. After a redetermination, an individual may appeal our determination that after disregarding evidence, the remaining evidence does not support that individual's entitlement to or eligibility for benefits and results in termination of such entitlement or eligibility. The individual may appeal any overpayments we assess based on such evidence. 3. An individual may appeal our finding of fraud or similar fault. However, we will not administratively review information provided by SSA's Office of the Inspector General under section 1129(l) of the Act regarding its reason to believe that fraud was involved in the individual's application for benefits. DATES: Effective Date: This SSR is effective on March 14, 2016. CROSS-REFERENCES: SSR 85-23, ``Title XVI: Reopening Supplemental Security Income Determinations at Any Time for `Similar Fault.' '' SSR 16-2p, ``Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Claims Involving the Issue of ``Similar Fault'' in the Providing of Evidence.'' [FR Doc. 2016-05661 Filed 3-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
![13436 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Notices
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, disregard any evidence if there is reason
Social Security—Survivors Insurance; to believe that fraud or similar fault was
[Docket No. SSA–2015–0037; Social 96.006—Supplemental Security Income.) involved in the providing of such
Security Ruling, SSR 16–1p]
Dated: March 7, 2016. evidence.’’ If, after redetermining
Titles II and XVI: Fraud and Similar Carolyn W. Colvin, entitlement to or eligibility for benefits,
Fault Redeterminations Under Acting Commissioner of Social Security. we determine that without the
Sections 205(U) and 1631(E)(7) of the disregarded evidence, the evidence does
Policy Interpretation Ruling not support entitlement or eligibility,
Social Security Act
Social Security Ruling, SSR 16–1p: we may terminate such entitlement or
AGENCY: Social Security Administration eligibility and may treat benefits paid
(SSA). Titles II And XVI: Fraud and Similar
based on such evidence as
Fault Redeterminations Under Sections
ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling overpayments.
205(u) And 1631(e)(7) of the Social This ruling describes the process we
(SSR). Security Act use when we redetermine an
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR PURPOSE: This Social Security Ruling individual’s entitlement or eligibility to
402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of Social (SSR) explains the process we use to receive benefits when there is reason to
Security gives notice of SSR 16–1p. This redetermine an individual’s entitlement believe that fraud or similar fault was
Ruling provides guidance on how we to or eligibility for benefits when there involved in that individual’s application
redetermine entitlement to and is reason to believe that fraud or similar for benefits.
eligibility for benefits when there is a fault was involved in that individual’s This ruling applies to all final
reason to believe fraud or similar fault application for benefits.1 determinations or decisions on
is involved with an individual’s CITATIONS: Sections 205(u) and entitlement or eligibility to receive
application for benefits. 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security Act, 42 benefits under title II and title XVI of
DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2016. U.S.C. 405(u), 1383(e)(7), as amended; the Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Regulations No. 4, sections 404.704, This ruling does not replace or limit
O’Brien, Director of Office of Vocational 404.708, 404.1512, 404.1520, and other appropriate standards and criteria
Evaluation and Process Policy in the 404.1527; Regulations No. 16, sections for evaluation of claims.
Office of Disability Policy, Social 416.912, 416.920, 416.924, and 416.927; POLICY INTERPRETATION:
Security Administration, 6401 Security and Regulations No. 22, section A. General
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 422.130(b).
(410) 597–1632 or TTY 410–966–5609, 1. Sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of
INTRODUCTION: The Social Security
the Act provide that we must
for information about this notice. For Independence and Program
immediately redetermine an
information on eligibility or filing for Improvements Act of 1994, Public Law
individual’s entitlement to monthly
benefits, call our national toll-free 103–296, amended the Social Security
insurance benefits under title II or
number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1– Act (Act) to add provisions addressing
eligibility for benefits under title XVI if
800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, fraud or similar fault. These
there is reason to believe that fraud or
Social Security Online, at http:// amendments to sections 205 and 1631 of
similar fault was involved in the
www.socialsecurity.gov. the Act provide that we must
individual’s application for benefits.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although immediately redetermine an
2. This legislation requires us to
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not individual’s entitlement to monthly
redetermine an individual’s entitlement
require us to publish this SSR, we are insurance benefits under title II or
or eligibility unless a United States
doing so in accordance with 20 CFR eligibility for benefits under title XVI if
Attorney, or equivalent State prosecutor,
402.35(b)(1). there is reason to believe that fraud or
with jurisdiction over potential or actual
Through SSRs, we convey to the similar fault was involved in the
related criminal cases, certifies, in
public SSA precedential decisions individual’s application for such
writing, that there is a substantial risk
relating to the Federal old-age, benefits. This legislation requires us to
that our action with regard to
survivors, disability, supplemental redetermine an individual’s entitlement
or eligibility unless a United States beneficiaries or recipients in a particular
security income, and special veterans investigation would jeopardize the
benefits programs. We may base SSRs Attorney, or equivalent State prosecutor,
with jurisdiction over potential or actual criminal prosecution of a person
on determinations or decisions made at involved in a suspected fraud.
all levels of administrative adjudication, related criminal cases, certifies, in
3. When we redetermine a case under
Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s writing, that there is a substantial risk
sections 205(u) or 1631(e)(7) of the Act,
decisions, opinions of the Office of the that such action by SSA with regard to
we must disregard evidence if there is
beneficiaries or recipients in a particular
General Counsel, or other reason to believe that fraud or similar
investigation would jeopardize the
interpretations of the law and fault was involved in providing that
criminal prosecution of a person
regulations. evidence.
Although SSRs do not have the same involved in a suspected fraud. This
4. We may find that any individual or
force and effect as statutes or statute further provides that, when we
entity whose actions affect an
redetermine entitlement or eligibility, or
regulations, they are binding on all individual’s application for monthly
when we make an initial determination
components of the Social Security benefits, has committed fraud or similar
of entitlement or eligibility, we ‘‘shall
Administration. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1). fault. Examples of any individual or
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
This SSR will remain in effect until 1 Fraud and similar fault redeterminations under
entity include a claimant, beneficiary,
we publish a notice in the Federal sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Act are auxiliary, recipient, spouse,
Register that rescinds it, or we publish distinct from reopenings as described in 20 CFR representative, medical source,
a new SSR that replaces or modifies it. 404.987–404.996 and 20 CFR 416.1487–416.1494. translator, interpreter, and
Fraud and similar fault redeterminations are also
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, distinct from redeterminations of Supplemental
representative payee. Sections 205(u) or
Programs Nos. 96.001, Social Security— Security Income eligibility under Title XVI of the 1631(e)(7) of the Act do not require that
Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Act as described in 20 CFR 416.204. the individual or entity who committed
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:27 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_13485/page/1.svg)
![13438 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Notices
2. After a redetermination, an benefits, call our national toll-free this AR, as provided by 20 CFR
individual may appeal our number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 404.985(c) and 416.1485(c), we will
determination that after disregarding 1–800–325–0778, or visit our Internet publish a notice in the Federal Register
evidence, the remaining evidence does site, Social Security Online, at http:// stating that we will apply our
not support that individual’s www.socialsecurity.gov. interpretation of the Act or regulations
entitlement to or eligibility for benefits SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are involved and explaining why we have
and results in termination of such publishing this Social Security AR in decided to relitigate the issue.
entitlement or eligibility. The individual accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2), (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,
may appeal any overpayments we assess 404.985(a), (b), and 416.1485(a), (b) to Program Nos. 96.001 Social Security—
based on such evidence. explain how we will apply a holding in Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social
3. An individual may appeal our Boley v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004
finding of fraud or similar fault. 2014), regarding judicial review of an
Social Security—Survivors Insurance)
However, we will not administratively ALJ’s order finding no good cause for a Dated: March 3, 2016.
review information provided by SSA’s late hearing request and dismissing the Carolyn W. Colvin,
Office of the Inspector General under request as untimely. Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
section 1129(l) of the Act regarding its An AR explains how we will apply a
reason to believe that fraud was holding in a decision of a United States ACQUIESCENCE RULING 16–1(7)
involved in the individual’s application Court of Appeals that we determine Boley v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 803 (7th Cir.
for benefits. conflicts with our interpretation of a 2014): Judicial Review of an
DATES: Effective Date: This SSR is provision of the Social Security Act Administrative Law Judge’s Order
effective on March 14, 2016. (Act) or regulations when the Finding No Good Cause for a Late
CROSS-REFERENCES: SSR 85–23, ‘‘Title Government has decided not to seek Hearing Request and Dismissing the
XVI: Reopening Supplemental Security further review of that decision or is Request as Untimely—Titles II and XVI
Income Determinations at Any Time for unsuccessful on further review. of the Social Security Act.
‘Similar Fault.’ ’’ SSR 16–2p, ‘‘Titles II This AR explains how we will apply ISSUE: May a claimant obtain judicial
and XVI: Evaluation of Claims Involving the holding in Boley v. Colvin to claims review of an administrative law judge
the Issue of ‘‘Similar Fault’’ in the in which the claimant makes a late (ALJ)’s order finding no good cause for
Providing of Evidence.’’ request for an ALJ hearing, the ALJ a late hearing request and dismissing
[FR Doc. 2016–05661 Filed 3–11–16; 8:45 am] dismisses the hearing request and finds the request as untimely?
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P that the claimant lacked good cause for STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING
missing the appeal deadline, and then CITATION: Sections 205(g) and
the claimant timely seeks review of the 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ALJ’s dismissal by the Appeals Council U.S.C. 405(g), 1383(c)(3)); 20 CFR
(AC). We will apply this AR to all 404.900(a), 404.901, 404.903(j),
[Docket No. SSA–2015–0070]
claims in the Seventh Circuit in which 404.933(b)–(c), 404.955, 404.957,
Social Security Acquiescence Ruling the AC denied a request for review of 404.959, 416.1400(a), 416.1401,
(AR) 16–1(7), Boley v. Colvin: Judicial such a dismissal on or after March 14, 416.1403(a)(8), 416.1433(b)–(c),
Review of an Administrative Law 2016. If the AC denied a request for 416.1455, 416.1457, 416.1459.
Judge’s Order Finding No Good Cause review of an ALJ dismissal between CIRCUIT: Seventh (Illinois, Indiana,
for a Late Hearing Request and August 4, 2014 (the date of the Court of Wisconsin).
Dismissing the Request as Untimely— Appeals’ decision) and March 14, 2016 APPLICABILITY OF RULING: This
Titles II and XVI of the Social Security (the effective date of this AR), the ruling applies to claims in which a
Act claimant may request that we apply the claimant resides in a State within the
AR. Seventh Circuit and in which an ALJ
AGENCY: Social Security Administration. When we received this precedential entered an order finding no good cause
ACTION:Notice of Social Security Court of Appeals’ decision and for a late hearing request, the ALJ
Acquiescence Ruling (AR). determined that an AR might be dismissed the request as untimely, the
required, we began to identify those claimant requested review by the
SUMMARY: We are publishing this Social claims that were pending before the Appeals Council (AC), and the AC
Security AR to explain how we will agency that might be subject to denied review.
apply a holding in a decision of the readjudication if we subsequently DESCRIPTION OF CASE: Marilyn
United States Court of Appeals for the issued an AR. Because we have Boley filed a claim for disability
Seventh Circuit that we have determined that an AR is required and insurance benefits. We denied her claim
determined conflicts with our are publishing this AR, we will send a at the initial and reconsideration levels
interpretation of the law regarding notice to those individuals whose of administrative review. Although she
judicial review of an administrative law claims we have identified. In the notice, was represented by an attorney at the
judge’s (ALJ’s) order finding no good we will provide information about the time we denied her request for
cause for a late hearing request and AR and the claimant’s rights under the reconsideration, we sent notice of the
dismissing the request as untimely. AR. However, claimants may request reconsidered determination to Ms.
DATES: Effective: March 14, 2016. that we apply this AR to their claims Boley, but not to her attorney. After
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: even if they did not receive a notice, as learning that we had denied Ms. Boley’s
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Todd Lewellen, Office of the General provided in 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2) and request for reconsideration, the attorney
Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social 416.1485(b)(2). requested a hearing. An ALJ dismissed
Security Administration, 6401 Security If we later rescind this AR as obsolete, that request as untimely because the
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, we will publish a notice in the Federal regulations at 20 CFR 404.933(b) and
(410) 965–3309, or TTY 410–966–5609, Register to that effect, as provided in 20 416.1433(b) require a claimant to
for information about this notice. For CFR 404.985(e) and 416.1485(e). If we request a hearing within 60 days of the
information on eligibility or filing for decide to relitigate the issue covered by claimant’s receipt of a reconsidered
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:27 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_13485/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2016-03-12 01:00:26
Document Modified: 2016-03-12 01:00:26
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of Social Security Ruling (SSR). | |
| Contact | Dan O'Brien, Director of Office of Vocational Evaluation and Process Policy in the Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 597-1632 or TTY 410-966-5609, for information about this notice. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 13436 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR