|
SUBJECT |
: |
Vacating the Administrative Law Judge's Decision When the Appeals Council Grants Review to Remand |
|
|
|
|
|
ISSUE |
: |
Should the Appeals Council continue to vacate the decision of the Administrative Law Judge when it remands a case? |
|
|
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
: |
The Appeals Council considered whether, upon granting review to remand a case under Social Security Administration Regulations at 20 CFR §§ 404.967, 404.977, 416.1467 and 416.1477, to continue to vacate the entire Administrative Law Judge's decision, or to vacate only a part of the Administrative Law Judge's decision and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for further action only on that part of the decision vacated by the order. The Appeals Council concluded, however, that the latter procedure would limit the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge to deal with other matters requiring resolution which may come into issue during the course of the subsequent proceedings. In addition, the procedure would create administrative problems and would cause significant confusion among affected claimants. Thus, to maintain flexibility in the hearing process and avoid unnecessary complexity in the appeals process, the Appeals Council decided to continue its operating practices and procedures with regard to vacating hearing decisions except to the extent noted herein. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With regard to partially favorable decisions, if an Administrative Law Judge holds, for example, that a claimant is under a disability but finds that the period of disability began later than alleged, the Appeals Council will, upon remand, vacate only that part of the decision pertaining to the unfavorable period and affirm the favorable portion if the favorable action is supported by substantial evidence. Similarly, if the Administrative Law Judge holds that the claimant is entitled to a closed period of disability but the Appeals Council questions whether the disability has ceased, the Council will vacate that portion of the decision which holds that the period of disability ended, but affirm the decision that the claimant was under a disability as of the date established. In these situations, the Appeals Council will issue a combined Affirmation/Remand Order to permit prompt effectuation of the favorable portion of the decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a case involving concurrent Title II and Title XVI claims, if the date last insured has expired and the Appeals Council agrees with the decision in the Title II claim but disagrees with the decision in the Title XVI claim, it will deny review of the Title II claim and vacate the Title XVI decision. The Council will continue to issue a separate denial notice and remand order in these cases. In all other circumstances, the Appeals Council will vacate the Administrative Law Judge's decision in its entirety. This in no way limits the authority or discretion of the Appeals Council to state in its orders of remand that it concurs with specific findings and conclusions, or agrees generally with portions of the decisional analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
INTERPRETATION |
: |
The Appeals Council will continue to vacate the Administrative Law Judge's decision upon remand except in two circumstances: (1) when the Administrative Law Judge's decision is partially favorable and the Appeals Council agrees with the favorable conclusion but not the entire decision; and (2) in concurrent claims under separate Titles, when the Appeals Council finds the decision pertaining to one Title is supported by substantial evidence but not the decision under the other Title. In the case of a partially favorable decision, the Appeals Council will vacate only that part of the decision which it questions, and leave undisturbed the favorable portion of the decision which it accepts. In concurrent claims, the Appeals Council will vacate only the decision pertaining to the Title with which it disagrees. |
|
APPLICATION |
: |
The Appeals Council will apply this interpretation in all cases that come before it involving the same issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
EFFECTIVE DATE |
: |
October 4, 1989 |
|
|
|
|
|
CROSS-REFERENCE |
: |
20 CFR §§ 404.967, 404.977 and 416.1467, 416.1477; HALLEX, §I-3-7-1 |
