You are here

Home > Practice Area Library > Disability Benefits > First Circuit > Judicial review

Judicial review

Enter the word(s) you are searching for; use quotes for exact phrase
Displaying 1 - 15 of 38

Barnhart v. Walton, 122 S.Ct. 1265 (2002)

10/22/2002 - U.S. Supreme Court - lock_open
Supreme Court decision dealing with 12-month duration requirement for SSI and SSDI eligibility and entitlement to trial work period.... Read more

Mills V. Apfel

01/01/2001 - lock_open
cert. denied 534 U.S. 1085 122 S.Ct. 822, 151 L.Ed.2d 704 (1/7/2002). Determination by Appeals Council that new evidence is not material is... Read more

Freeman V. Barnhart

01/01/2001 - lock_open
If applicant has met her burdens of production and proof at Steps 1-4 of sequential evaluation, then SSA has burden at Step 5 of coming... Read more

Seavey V. Barnhart

01/01/2001 - lock_open
At Step 5, SSA bears burden to come forward with evidence showing that there are jobs the claimant can do despite limitations. Since SSA is... Read more

Weeks V. SSA Comm'r

01/01/2000 - lock_open
An Appeals Council order remanding a case to the ALJ for further proceedings is not a final decision appealable to the federal courts.... Read more

Sims V. Apfel

01/01/2000 - lock_open
There is no Appeals Council issue exhaustion requirement. Although seeking AC review of ALJ decision is generally required in order to... Read more

Ward V. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

01/01/2000 - lock_open
Remand for legal error not required where there is independent legal ground for the decision (application of correct legal standard would... Read more

Parisi V. Chater

01/01/1995 - lock_open
In calculating benefits of dependent child of disabled worker , family maximum cap does not reduce child's benefits by amount of spousal... Read more

Picopo V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1994 - lock_open
District Court does lack jurisdiction when claimant fails to file a timely complaint (60 days) after notice of Secretary's final decision.

John Banks V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1994 - lock_open
District court erred in sua sponte, affirming denial of benefits without affording claimant an opportunity to brief the issues in the case... Read more

Colon V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1989 - lock_open
The denial of a request to reopen an application for disability benefits is ordinarily not reviewable in federal court, although an... Read more

Torres V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1988 - lock_open
A dismissal of a hearing request on res judicata grounds, where the current claim has the same factual basis as the earlier decision, is... Read more

Sprandel V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1988 - lock_open
Court gives considerable deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations,and construe the provisions of the relevant... Read more

Borden V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1987 - lock_open

McCuin V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1987 - lock_open
Own motion reopening by Appeals Council limited to 60 days; reopening after 60 days allowed only on the motion of claimants. Court gives... Read more
Displaying 1 - 15 of 38

Barnhart v. Walton, 122 S.Ct. 1265 (2002)

10/22/2002 - U.S. Supreme Court - lock_open
Supreme Court decision dealing with 12-month duration requirement for SSI and SSDI eligibility and entitlement to trial work period.... Read more

Mills V. Apfel

01/01/2001 - lock_open
cert. denied 534 U.S. 1085 122 S.Ct. 822, 151 L.Ed.2d 704 (1/7/2002). Determination by Appeals Council that new evidence is not material is... Read more

Freeman V. Barnhart

01/01/2001 - lock_open
If applicant has met her burdens of production and proof at Steps 1-4 of sequential evaluation, then SSA has burden at Step 5 of coming... Read more

Seavey V. Barnhart

01/01/2001 - lock_open
At Step 5, SSA bears burden to come forward with evidence showing that there are jobs the claimant can do despite limitations. Since SSA is... Read more

Weeks V. SSA Comm'r

01/01/2000 - lock_open
An Appeals Council order remanding a case to the ALJ for further proceedings is not a final decision appealable to the federal courts.... Read more

Sims V. Apfel

01/01/2000 - lock_open
There is no Appeals Council issue exhaustion requirement. Although seeking AC review of ALJ decision is generally required in order to... Read more

Ward V. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

01/01/2000 - lock_open
Remand for legal error not required where there is independent legal ground for the decision (application of correct legal standard would... Read more

Parisi V. Chater

01/01/1995 - lock_open
In calculating benefits of dependent child of disabled worker , family maximum cap does not reduce child's benefits by amount of spousal... Read more

Picopo V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1994 - lock_open
District Court does lack jurisdiction when claimant fails to file a timely complaint (60 days) after notice of Secretary's final decision.

John Banks V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1994 - lock_open
District court erred in sua sponte, affirming denial of benefits without affording claimant an opportunity to brief the issues in the case... Read more

Colon V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1989 - lock_open
The denial of a request to reopen an application for disability benefits is ordinarily not reviewable in federal court, although an... Read more

Torres V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1988 - lock_open
A dismissal of a hearing request on res judicata grounds, where the current claim has the same factual basis as the earlier decision, is... Read more

Sprandel V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1988 - lock_open
Court gives considerable deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations,and construe the provisions of the relevant... Read more

Borden V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1987 - lock_open

McCuin V. Sec'y HHS

01/01/1987 - lock_open
Own motion reopening by Appeals Council limited to 60 days; reopening after 60 days allowed only on the motion of claimants. Court gives... Read more