The analyst will examine the claim(s) file to verify that a proper
party timely filed the request for review, using the instructions
in Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law (HALLEX) manual HA 01310.001.
The analyst will also determine whether the claim(s) file is
complete and ready for substantive review by verifying that:
•
All hearing recording(s) are associated with the claim(s)
file;
•
In paper cases involving concurrent claims, both claims
files are present;
•
The Office of Appellate Operations has responded to all
requests for recordings or exhibits;
•
When one or more representatives is involved, the
claim(s) file has a valid Form SSA-1696 (Claimant's Appointment of
a Representative) (for policy on representative appointments and the
requirements of a valid Form SSA-1696, see HALLEX HA 01110.010) and the representative information
is correct in the Appeals Review Processing System (ARPS) or Office
of Appellate Operations Case Processing System (OAOCPS) and the
Registration, Appointment and Services for Representatives (RASR)
application; and
•
The claimant's address in ARPS or OAOCPS is current
and accurate based on review of the queries and the claim(s)
file.
The analyst will also examine the claim(s) file for outstanding
requests for an extension of time (EOT) to submit additional evidence or
arguments. If the analyst discovers such a request, they will determine
whether the Appeals Council (AC) should respond to the request before
performing a substantive review.
The AC may mail an acknowledgement
letter that confirms receipt of the claimant's request for review. The
acknowledgement letter is not an EOT and should not be used to respond
to a request for an EOT.
The AC generally will grant an initial
EOT request and should respond to such a request before performing a
substantive review. However, it is not always necessary for the AC to
respond to an EOT request before performing a substantive review. Certain
circumstances may render the request moot. As described in HALLEX
HA 01310.014, in these
circumstances, the AC may address an EOT request with its action on the
request for review.
Before performing a substantive review, the analyst will also
evaluate whether the hearing office properly applied the following
procedural requirements and whether corrective action is necessary:
•
The hearing office mailed the notice of
hearing at least 75 days before the hearing, unless the
file contains a claimant's written waiver of their right
to advance notice (see HALLEX HA 01230.015);
•
The notice of hearing stated all issues to be
decided;
•
The ALJ afforded the claimant proper notice of the right
to present evidence or review post-hearing evidence.
See HALLEX HA 01320.025 if the claimant alleges unfairness,
prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, or discrimination by the
ALJ.