Title 42

SECTION 405.1108

405.1108 Council actions when request for review or escalation is filed.

§ 405.1108 Council actions when request for review or escalation is filed.

(a) Except as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, when a party requests that the Council review an ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision, the Council will review the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision de novo. The party requesting review does not have a right to a hearing before the Council. The Council will consider all of the evidence in the administrative record. Upon completion of its review, the Council may adopt, modify, or reverse the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision or remand the case to an ALJ or attorney adjudicator for further proceedings.

(b) When a party requests that the Council review an ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's dismissal of a request for a hearing, the Council may deny review or vacate the dismissal and remand the case to the ALJ or attorney adjudicator for further proceedings.

(c) The Council will dismiss a request for review when the party requesting review does not have a right to a review by the Council, or will dismiss the request for a hearing for any reason that the ALJ or attorney adjudicator could have dismissed the request for hearing.

(d) When an appellant requests escalation of a case from the OMHA level to the Council, the Council may take any of the following actions:

(1) Issue a decision based on the record constructed at the QIC and any additional evidence, including oral testimony, entered in the record by the ALJ or attorney adjudicator before the case was escalated.

(2) Conduct any additional proceedings, including a hearing, that the Council determines are necessary to issue a decision.

(3) Remand the case to OMHA for further proceedings, including a hearing.

(4) Dismiss the request for Council review because the appellant does not have the right to escalate the appeal.

(5) Dismiss the request for a hearing for any reason that the ALJ or attorney adjudicator could have dismissed the request.

[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 82 FR 5122, Jan. 17, 2017]

---