DEPARTMEN'T OF HEALTH. EDUCATION.

AND WELFp,i(:
'.'1. \'It 11< AN 1) UM
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINlSTRATION
,-,<;,
:;,.!.).1<t1
Regional Chief
Administrative Law Judges
./
LAw in Charge DATE:
Fa 17 1981
TO Administrative
Administrative Law
kEPEl TO, SGA4
"ROM
Mr. Andrew J. YOll{!jjll,,(,....v:1
Associate
for Hearings and Appe
'UBJECT. Assignment of Appeals Council: Court itemands
On August 5, 19S0, I notified the administrative law judge
corps that I was considering a change in policy with respect
to assignment of Appeals Council and court remands. In
accordance with the terms of the stipulated settlement in
Bono, et 11.1. v. United States, I invited your comments as to
tne of returning to our prior practice of
assigning all remands, to the greatest extent practicable,
to the administrative law jUdge, who initially decided
case.
I am gratified to report a significant number of judges
responded and gave me the benefit of their thoughts on
important question. The comments reflected serious considera
tion and provided the author's reasoning for the recommendation.
By an overwhelming majority, the responding judges recoll1Illended
that we reinstitute the prior policy of assigning remands to
the administrative law judge who initially decided the case.
After carefully considering the cOll1Illents, including the
objections to a change in the current policy, I have decided
to modify the policy as specified below.
All Appeals Council and court remands will be assigned by the
to the administrative law judge who issued the decision
or dismissal which is being appealed. This policy will not
apply, however, under the following circumstances:
1. The Appeals Councilor the court specifi
cally directs that the case be assigned to a
different ALJ;
2. The court remand order or memorandum opinion
or Appeals Council order states that the claimant
did not receive a full and fair hearing or is
highly critical of the ALJ with respect to the
conduct of the hearing; or
35
2
3. A court directs or requests. in general.
that remands be assigned to a different ALJ.
In addition. the ALJIC will exercise his discretion and judg
ment in assigning the case to another ALJ under the followinS
circumstances:
1 . Unavailability of the AL.J who issued the
decision or dismissal because of illness. leave
or other prolonged absence from the hearing office;
2. Excessive workload of the ALJ who issued the
decision or dismissal;
3. A hearing trip by another ALJ', already
scheduled and approved. to the area in which the
claimant resides; and
4. Other factors which would unduly delay action
on the remand order. particularly When such factors
may result in failure to meet court or regulatory
imposed time limitations.
In sUIlllllary. the general policy with respect to Appeals Council
and court remands will be to assign them to the administrative
law judge who issued the decision or dismissal being appealed.
This policy will be subject to the exceptions specified above
and may be modified by the ALJrC to accommodate exceptional
circumstances which may cause undue delay or difficulty in
disposing of the remand order. This new policy is effective
inunediately.
I want to emphasize that this change is being made for the
purpose of improving our service to the public. My decision to
propose this change was influenced by comments and recommenda
tions made by a number of administrative law judges over the
past year. Based on the response to my request for comments.
an overwhelming majority of the judges favor such a change.
I was impressed with and considered the concern, expressed by
many of the judges opposing revision of the present policy, that
assigning a remand to the original ALJ would create the
appearance. if not the fact. of unfairness. In any instance
where a party believes he or she could not :eceive a fair hearing
36
befure the original ALJ, he or she still has the regulatory
'- right to request that the ALJ disqualify himself or h e r s e l ~ .
In the final analysis, the situation is no different from any
other instance where a party believes he or she will not receive
fair consideration from the ALJ assigned to adjudicate his or
her case.
Thank you for yow: concern and assistance in this matter.
37
......... ,
DEPART...n:"T OF HE .... LTH &. Hl"' .....'\i SER\'ICES
(4
....::2
Refer 10: Office 01 Heapngs and ADDealS
SGJ2
PO Box 3200
JUN 231987
Arlinglon VA 222G3
.MEMORANDOM TO: Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges
Hearing Office Chief Acministrative Law Judges
Administrative Law Judges
FROM Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge
SUaJECT Assignment of AEpeals Council Remands
Onder eXisting policy, Appeals Council remands, including those
generated by the courts, are assigned in rotation sO far as
practicable unless the Council designates the administrative
law judge (ALJ) who will hear the case, or the case was
remanded specifically to disability criteria pursuant
to a court or
Based on a number of considerations, the Associate Commissioner
has decided to change the policy governing assignment of
remands. The current policy has resulted in a SUbstantial
duplication of effort which we believe could be avoided if the
case were assigned to the original ALJ. If duplicative effort
was avoided, claimants would receive more timely decisions.
Equally important, assigning remands in rotation does not
follow the usual judicial practice of returning remands to the
jUdge who issued the decision.
There are other advantages to changing the policy, the most
obvious being the establishment of individual ALJ
accountability for his or her own performance. In addition,
returning the case to the same ALJ to take necessary action
could be of instructional value and reduce the incidence of
similar circumstances in future cases. For example, in a case
remanded by a court, the ALJ will have an opportunity to learn
why the case was remanded.
The new policy provides that:
All Appeals Council and court remands will be assigned
by the Hearing Office Chief ALJ to the ALJ who issued
the decision or dismissal. This policy will not
apply, however, under the following circumstances:
1. The Appeals Councilor the court directs that the
case be assigned to a different ALJ;
33
Page 2
2. The court remand order or memorandum opinion
indicates that the claimant did not receive a full
and fair hearing.
In addition, the Hearing Office Chief ALJ will exercise his/her
discretion in assigning the case to another ALJ under the
following circumstances:
1. Unavailability of the ALJ who issued the decision
or dismissal because of illness, leave or other
proldnged absence from the hearing office:
2. Excessive workload of the ALJ who issued the
decision or dismissal:
3. Another ALJ is scheduled to visit the area in
which the claimant resides before the ALJ who
issued the original decision; and
4. Other factors which would unduly delay action on
the remand order, particularly when such factors
,
may result in failure to meet court imposed time
limitations.
This policy is effective immediately upon receipt of this
memorandum. If you have any questions, please contact Bill
Belanger of my staff at 235-3504.
34
DEPARTME'H OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
ReIer 10:
Office of HearlOgs and Appeat
o
PO Box 3200
ArlinQton VA 22203 -../
.JUrI \ .1 1990
'MEMORANDUM TO: Headquarters 2xecutive Staff
Counc:l Members
Regional Chie: Administrative
Law Judges
Hearing Office Chief Administrative
Law Judges
All Administrative Law Judges
Supervisory Staff Attorneys
FROM Associate
SUBJECT Assignment of Council Remands -
INFOEI1ATION
Under existing policy, the Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge assisns Appeals Council remands,
including those generated by the courts, to the
Administrative Law Judge who issued the decision or
dismissal, with certain excepoions. One such exception is
when the Appeals Councilor one court directs that the case
be assigned to a different Administrative Law Judge.
I have decided to expand tha: exception. Effective
immediately, when the Appeals Council must remand a case more
than once, the case will not be assigned on remand to an
Administrative Law JUdge whose disposition on the same case
has been the subject of a previous APpea.. ls2cuncil Order.
\,
\ \...(,
Ii
..... L-..
/..--'ty'
---...
'Eileen dle\
32
51::('&
0' 't,

W'USA\\\:
\, 11I1IIIJ

SOCIAL SECURITY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
OCT - 62006 Refer To: 07-8
To:
Ollie Garmon
Regional Chief Judge
Atlanta
From:
Frank A.
Chief Judge
Subject:
Policy ofRemanding Cases to the Same Judge- Information
The current guidelines in HALLEX 1-2-l-55D(11) state the following regarding remands:
"Appeals Council remands, including those generated by the courts, are assigned to the same
ALI who issued the decision or dismissal unless:
a. the case was previously assigned to that ALI on a prior remand from the Appeals Council
and the ALTs decision or dismissal after remand is the subject of the new Appeals
Council remand, or .
b. the Appeals Councilor the court directs that the case be assigned to a different ALI."
My staff went tI1rough the limited historical archives and we believe the current policy has been
in place for at least twenty years. We were unable to determine a precise date but believe that
the basis for the policy was to ensure that the judge who received a remand would learn through
the process. This would ultimately improve the overall quality ofthe decisions.
If a case is remanded a second time, it must be assigned to another judge. This has been the
existing policy as weB for many years and has not been changed. .
I hope this is helpful to you. Ifyou have any additional questions, please contact Steven Cravens
of my staffat (703)605-8106.
31