# SSR 13-1p: SSR 13-1p: Titles II and XVI: Agency Processes For Addressing Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_13_1p

## Section

- **Citation:** SSR 13-1p
- **Heading:** SSR 13-1p: Titles II and XVI: Agency Processes For Addressing Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Social Security Rulings / OASI / Evidence, Procedure, and Certification for Payment / SSR 13-1p

## Text

Effective Date: February 28, 2013 Publication Date: January 29, 2013 Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 19, page 6168 Correction Notice: February 12, 2013 Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 29, page 9987 Correction Notice: April 15, 2013 Federal Register Vol.
78, No. 72, page 22361

POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING

Purpose: This Ruling clarifies the three separate processes we
have for addressing allegations of unfairness, prejudice,
partiality, bias, misconduct, or discrimination by an ALJ.

Citations (Authority): Sections 205(b) , 809(a) , and 1631(c) of
the Social Security Act, as amended; Regulations No. 4, subpart
J, sections 404.940 , 404.967 , 404.969 , and 404.970 , Regulations
No. 5, subpart A, sections 405.25 and 405.30 , and
Regulations No. 16, subpart P, sections 416.1440 , 416.1440 , 416.1467 , 416.1469 , and 416.1470 .

Background: Statements and actions by our adjudicators that
display unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, or
discrimination undermine public trust and confidence in our
administrative process. Our ALJs perform an essential role in
ensuring that our administrative process is fair to claimants by
conducting de novo, informal, non-adversarial hearings and
issuing decisions for claimants who are dissatisfied with our
determinations in claims arising under the Social Security Act.
All adjudicators, including our ALJs, must fulfill their duties
with fairness and impartiality
ve process. Our ALJs perform an essential role in
ensuring that our administrative process is fair to claimants by
conducting de novo, informal, non-adversarial hearings and
issuing decisions for claimants who are dissatisfied with our
determinations in claims arising under the Social Security Act.
All adjudicators, including our ALJs, must fulfill their duties
with fairness and impartiality. We have three separate
processes to guard against unfairness in our hearing process: (1)
the Appeals Council review process, under which we review
hearing decisions in accordance with 20 CFR 404.969 , 404.970 , 416.1469 and 416.1470 ,
to ensure that ALJs fairly and
impartially consider claims for benefits; (2) the Division of
Quality Service's ALJ complaint investigation process; and (3)
the civil rights investigation process for allegations of
discrimination involving unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or
bias based on race, color, national origin (including English
language ability), religion, sex, sexual orientation, age,
disability, or in retaliation for having previously filed a
civil rights complaint. These three processes operate
separately from one another and have different focuses.
Claimants, parties, and the public may avail themselves of any
or all three of the processes, as applicable, and all three
processes may occur concurrently.

In this Ruling, we explain these three different processes and
emphasize that:
or in retaliation for having previously filed a
civil rights complaint. These three processes operate
separately from one another and have different focuses.
Claimants, parties, and the public may avail themselves of any
or all three of the processes, as applicable, and all three
processes may occur concurrently.

In this Ruling, we explain these three different processes and
emphasize that:

- The Appeals Council has authority under 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470 to act when a party is dissatisfied with a hearing
decision or dismissal of a hearing request. Even when a party
does not request review, the Appeals Council may initiate review
under 20 CFR 404.969 and 416.1469 . The
Appeals Council considers allegations of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or
bias by ALJs under the standards for review in 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470 .
The Appeals Council may also consider objections
from a party stating why a new hearing should be held before
another ALJ pursuant to 20 CFR 404.940 and 416.1440 . In
evaluating such allegations, the Appeals Council considers only
the evidence contained in the claimant's administrative record.
The Appeals Council's process is the only process set forth
herein that allows a claimant to obtain a remedy on the claim
for benefits.

- The Division of Quality Service may review and, if warranted,
investigate any complaints against an ALJ, including allegations
of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, or misconduct.
Under this process, the Division of Quality Service evaluates
allegations to determine whether it is necessary to recommend
administrative or disciplinary action against an ALJ.

- Individuals who allege discrimination based on their race,
color, national origin (including English language ability),
religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or in
retaliation for having previously filed a civil rights complaint,
may also file a separate discrimination complaint with us using
our civil rights complaint process.
istrative or disciplinary action against an ALJ.

- Individuals who allege discrimination based on their race,
color, national origin (including English language ability),
religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or in
retaliation for having previously filed a civil rights complaint,
may also file a separate discrimination complaint with us using
our civil rights complaint process.

The Appeals Council has authority under 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470 to act when a party is dissatisfied with a hearing
decision or dismissal of a hearing request. Even when a party
does not request review, the Appeals Council may initiate review
under 20 CFR 404.969 and 416.1469 . The
Appeals Council considers allegations of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or
bias by ALJs under the standards for review in 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470 .
The Appeals Council may also consider objections
from a party stating why a new hearing should be held before
another ALJ pursuant to 20 CFR 404.940 and 416.1440 . In
evaluating such allegations, the Appeals Council considers only
the evidence contained in the claimant's administrative record.
The Appeals Council's process is the only process set forth
herein that allows a claimant to obtain a remedy on the claim
for benefits.

The Division of Quality Service may review and, if warranted,
investigate any complaints against an ALJ, including allegations
of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, or misconduct.
Under this process, the Division of Quality Service evaluates
allegations to determine whether it is necessary to recommend
administrative or disciplinary action against an ALJ.

Individuals who allege discrimination based on their race,
color, national origin (including English language ability),
religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or in
retaliation for having previously filed a civil rights complaint,
may also file a separate discrimination complaint with us using
our civil rights complaint process.

Policy Interpretation
nary action against an ALJ.

Individuals who allege discrimination based on their race,
color, national origin (including English language ability),
religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or in
retaliation for having previously filed a civil rights complaint,
may also file a separate discrimination complaint with us using
our civil rights complaint process.

Policy Interpretation

Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, or
Misconduct Evaluated in the Appeals Council Claims Review
Process

The ALJ's decision is subject to Appeals Council review under 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470 if the claimant or other party or his
or her representative timely requests review of the ALJ's
decision. The Appeals Council may also review the ALJ's
decision on its own motion under 20 CFR 404.969 and 416.1469 .
The Appeals Council will grant a party's request for review and
issue a decision or remand a case when:

- there appears to be an abuse of discretion by the ALJ;

- there is an error of law;

- the action, findings or conclusions of the ALJ are not
supported by substantial evidence;

- there is a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect
the general public interest; or

- there is new and material evidence submitted that relates
to the period on or before the ALJ's hearing decision, and
review of the case shows that the ALJ's actions, findings or
conclusions are contrary to the weight of the evidence currently
of record.

there appears to be an abuse of discretion by the ALJ;

there is an error of law;

the action, findings or conclusions of the ALJ are not
supported by substantial evidence;

there is a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect
the general public interest; or

there is new and material evidence submitted that relates
to the period on or before the ALJ's hearing decision, and
review of the case shows that the ALJ's actions, findings or
conclusions are contrary to the weight of the evidence currently
of record.
ALJ are not
supported by substantial evidence;

there is a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect
the general public interest; or

there is new and material evidence submitted that relates
to the period on or before the ALJ's hearing decision, and
review of the case shows that the ALJ's actions, findings or
conclusions are contrary to the weight of the evidence currently
of record.

Under our regulations, an ALJ must not conduct a hearing if he
or she is prejudiced or partial with respect to any party or has
any interest in the matter pending for decision. A claimant or
other party to the hearing who objects to the ALJ who will
conduct the hearing must notify the ALJ at his or her earliest
opportunity. The ALJ will then decide whether to proceed with
the hearing or to withdraw. If the ALJ does not withdraw, the
claimant or other party to the hearing may, after the hearing,
present objections to the Appeals Council as to reasons why the
hearing decision should be revised or a new hearing should be
held before another ALJ.

If, in conjunction with a request for review, the Appeals
Council receives an allegation of ALJ unfairness, prejudice,
partiality, or bias, the Appeals Council will review the
claimant's allegations and hearing decision under the abuse of
discretion standard. We will find an abuse of discretion when
an ALJ's action is erroneous and without any rational basis, or
is clearly not justified under the particular circumstances of
the case, such as where there has been an improper exercise, or
a failure to exercise, administrative authority. For example,
if the record shows that the ALJ failed to conduct a full and
fair hearing by refusing to allow the claimant to testify or
cross-examine witnesses, we will find that an abuse of
discretion has occurred. An abuse of discretion may also occur
where there is a failure to follow procedures required by law
been an improper exercise, or
a failure to exercise, administrative authority. For example,
if the record shows that the ALJ failed to conduct a full and
fair hearing by refusing to allow the claimant to testify or
cross-examine witnesses, we will find that an abuse of
discretion has occurred. An abuse of discretion may also occur
where there is a failure to follow procedures required by law.
An ALJ also abuses his or her discretion if the evidence in the
record shows that the ALJ failed to recuse himself or herself
from a case in which he or she was prejudiced or partial with
respect to a particular claim or claimant, or had an interest in
the matter pending for decision. In this instance, we will
remand the case to another ALJ for a new hearing or revise the
ALJ's decision pursuant to 20 CFR 404.940 and 416.1440 .
In considering allegations of unfairness, prejudice, partiality,
or bias by the ALJ, the Appeals Council reviews information in
the claimant's administrative record to determine whether to
consider the alleged actions an abuse of discretion. The
Appeals Council relies solely on information in the
administrative record in determining this issue. The Appeals
Council does not otherwise investigate the allegations or
consider information or evidence that is not a part of the
administrative record.

After reviewing the administrative record to evaluate the
allegation of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or bias by the
ALJ under the abuse of discretion standard, the Appeals Council
will send the claimant a notice, order, or decision explaining
that it has considered the allegation under the abuse of
discretion standard and stating whether it found an abuse of
discretion. The sole remedy the Appeals Council may provide to
the claimant is a decision or a remand for further
administrative action on the particular claim for benefits under
review
ndard, the Appeals Council
will send the claimant a notice, order, or decision explaining
that it has considered the allegation under the abuse of
discretion standard and stating whether it found an abuse of
discretion. The sole remedy the Appeals Council may provide to
the claimant is a decision or a remand for further
administrative action on the particular claim for benefits under
review. When the Appeals Council issues its notice, order, or
decision describing its action on the request for review, this
concludes its role in the appellate review process. Such action
does not involve a referral to the Division of Quality Services,
nor does it constitute disciplinary action against an ALJ.
If the Appeals Council receives an allegation that falls outside
its jurisdiction, such as an allegation that an ALJ violated
personnel regulations or policies, the Appeals Council will
process the request for review and acknowledge the
allegation. [1] The Appeals Council will then refer the allegation to the
Division of Quality Service. Similarly, if the Appeals Council
receives an allegation about another issue that is beyond the
scope of its authority, such as an allegation that an ALJ shows
“general bias” or a pattern of bias or misconduct against a
group or particular category of claimants, the Appeals Council
will process the request for review and acknowledge the
allegation in the notice, order, or decision. The Appeals
Council will refer the allegation to the Division of Quality
Service. Possible examples of allegations that the Appeals
Council will not refer to the Division of Quality Service
include, “the ALJ is biased against me [individually]” and “the
ALJ is prejudiced because she did not find me disabled.”
Possible examples of allegations that the Appeals Council will
refer to the Division of Quality Service include, “the ALJ is
biased against claimants who receive workers compensation
benefits or unemployment benefits” and “the ALJ shows prejudice
toward women.”
ty Service
include, “the ALJ is biased against me [individually]” and “the
ALJ is prejudiced because she did not find me disabled.”
Possible examples of allegations that the Appeals Council will
refer to the Division of Quality Service include, “the ALJ is
biased against claimants who receive workers compensation
benefits or unemployment benefits” and “the ALJ shows prejudice
toward women.”

Additionally, the Appeals Council may identify ALJ conduct that
it determines warrants referral to the Division of Quality
Service even if a claimant has not alleged it or filed a request
for review with the Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council
makes such a referral, it will clearly identify and refer the
conduct to the Division of Quality Service. The Appeals Council
will not reference any referral to the Division of Quality
Service in a notice, order, or decision.

ALJ Complaint Investigation Process through the Division of
Quality Service

We also may receive allegations and complaints about ALJ conduct
directly from claimants and other sources, outside of the scope
of Appeals Council review. For example, in addition to
receiving complaints from individual claimants, we may also
receive complaints from witnesses at a hearing, claimant
representatives, agency personnel such as those in our Office of
the Inspector General (OIG), Members of Congress, and the
Federal courts. Within the Office of Disability Adjudication
Review (ODAR), the Division of Quality Service collects, reviews,
and if warranted, investigates all allegations and complaints,
including allegations referred by the Appeals Council under the
process described above. The Division of Quality Service is
responsible for receiving, tracking, and monitoring complaints
that it receives.
Federal courts. Within the Office of Disability Adjudication
Review (ODAR), the Division of Quality Service collects, reviews,
and if warranted, investigates all allegations and complaints,
including allegations referred by the Appeals Council under the
process described above. The Division of Quality Service is
responsible for receiving, tracking, and monitoring complaints
that it receives.

This ALJ complaint investigation process is not an additional or
alternative way to appeal the decision or dismissal on a claim
for benefits. Filing a complaint using this process does not
substitute for requesting review by the Appeals Council within
the time frames set out in our regulations. If an individual
wants to make a formal complaint about a particular ALJ (whether
or not that complaint is associated with a particular claim for
benefits) and request that management officials investigate the
ALJ's conduct, the individual must file the complaint with the
Division of Quality Service.

When the Division of Quality Service receives a complaint about
an ALJ from a claimant or member of the public, it will
acknowledge receipt of the complaint in writing and make
reasonable efforts to do so within 60 days from the date it
receives the complaint. However, the Division of Quality
Service will not acknowledge complaints referred by the Appeals
Council or other agency components. If an ODAR Regional Office
receives a complaint from a claimant or member of the public
about an ALJ, the Regional Office will acknowledge receipt of
the complaint in writing and make reasonable efforts to do so
within 60 days from the date it receives the complaint. The ODAR
Regional Offices will also notify the Division of Quality
Service that they received the complaint.
gency components. If an ODAR Regional Office
receives a complaint from a claimant or member of the public
about an ALJ, the Regional Office will acknowledge receipt of
the complaint in writing and make reasonable efforts to do so
within 60 days from the date it receives the complaint. The ODAR
Regional Offices will also notify the Division of Quality
Service that they received the complaint.

In order for the Division of Quality Service to review or
investigate a complaint, the complaint must be filed in writing
by the claimant, another party to the hearing, the claimant's
representative, someone authorized to act on the claimant's or
other party's behalf, or another individual who was present at
the claimant's hearing (collectively, the complainant). If we
receive the complaint from someone other than the individuals
listed above, we will notify that individual that we will not
review it. To ensure that we can obtain any necessary
information in a timely manner, we must receive the complaint
within 180 days of either the date of the action complained of,
or the date the complainant became aware of such conduct. The
complaint should contain specific information about the conduct,
including where and when it occurred, and whether there were any
witnesses. If we do not receive this information, we will
inform the complainant of the insufficiency of information, and
give him or her 30 days from the date of the notice to supply
additional information.
e date the complainant became aware of such conduct. The
complaint should contain specific information about the conduct,
including where and when it occurred, and whether there were any
witnesses. If we do not receive this information, we will
inform the complainant of the insufficiency of information, and
give him or her 30 days from the date of the notice to supply
additional information.

The Division of Quality Service (or its designee) will review
all complaints that it receives. A review includes an audit of
the hearing recording if available, and an examination of the
complaint, the hearing decision, and any other relevant
documentation. If the Division of Quality Service's review
indicates an investigation is unnecessary, we will close out the
complaint and forward it to the appropriate ODAR Regional
Office. [2] If the Division of Quality Service determines that an
investigation is necessary, the Division of Quality Service will
forward the complaint to the appropriate Regional Chief
Administrative Law Judge (RCALJ). At the beginning of the
investigation, the RCALJ (or his or her designee) will notify
the ALJ, give him or her a copy of the complaint, and provide
him or her with an opportunity to respond to the complaint. In
addition to auditing the hearing recording and examining the
complaint, the hearing decision, and any other relevant
documentation, an investigation may include contacting any
witnesses who have information related to the complaint.
Following the investigation, the appropriate RCALJ will prepare
a report for the Division of Quality Service's review containing
findings and recommending any necessary action regarding the ALJ.
Such action could include counseling, training, mentoring, or
disciplinary action. Once a review or investigation is complete,
we will notify the complainant that we processed the complaint
omplaint.
Following the investigation, the appropriate RCALJ will prepare
a report for the Division of Quality Service's review containing
findings and recommending any necessary action regarding the ALJ.
Such action could include counseling, training, mentoring, or
disciplinary action. Once a review or investigation is complete,
we will notify the complainant that we processed the complaint.
However, we will also explain that the Privacy Act prevents us
from disclosing whether there was an investigation and whether
we took any action against the ALJ who is the subject of the
complaint.

The Division of Quality Service will use the same process
described above to review or investigate complaints alleging
“general bias” as well as those alleging a pattern of ALJ bias
or misconduct against a group of claimants, or a particular
category of claimants. In addition, the Division of Quality
Service will monitor individual complaints that it receives to
identify any patterns of alleged ALJ bias or misconduct against
a group of claimants, or a particular category of claimants, for
further investigation. If we substantiate these complaints, we
will take appropriate action as described in this Ruling.
We may also find after a review or investigation the complaint
is unsubstantiated, and we will take no action with respect to
the ALJ. Our findings or actions in the Division of Quality
Service ALJ complaint investigation process do not constitute
findings on a claim for benefits under the Social Security Act.
Rather, they represent an action committed to agency discretion
by law and are not subject to judicial review.

Investigation of Allegations of Discrimination Under Our Civil
Rights Complaint Process
spect to
the ALJ. Our findings or actions in the Division of Quality
Service ALJ complaint investigation process do not constitute
findings on a claim for benefits under the Social Security Act.
Rather, they represent an action committed to agency discretion
by law and are not subject to judicial review.

Investigation of Allegations of Discrimination Under Our Civil
Rights Complaint Process

A person who was a party to a hearing may file a discrimination
complaint with us alleging discrimination in our hearing process
based on race, color, national origin (including English
language ability), religion, sex, sexual orientation, age,
disability or in retaliation for having previously filed a civil
rights complaint. Currently, our Office of the General Counsel
has the responsibility to investigate and decide complaints that
individuals file under this process. A person who was a party
to a hearing may file a discrimination complaint under our civil
rights investigation process in addition to filing a request for
Appeals Council review or filing a complaint with the Division
of Quality Service.

An individual may file a discrimination complaint alleging
discrimination by an ALJ by using Form SSA-437-BK (available at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ssa-437.pdf ); however, an
individual is not required to use this form and may make a
complaint with a letter that contains the same information. The
discrimination complaint must be filed within 180 days of the
alleged discriminatory action unless we find there is good cause
for late filing. Form SSA-437-BK provides:
by using Form SSA-437-BK (available at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ssa-437.pdf ); however, an
individual is not required to use this form and may make a
complaint with a letter that contains the same information. The
discrimination complaint must be filed within 180 days of the
alleged discriminatory action unless we find there is good cause
for late filing. Form SSA-437-BK provides:

“If you disagree with a decision that was made on a claim
you filed for benefits, you must appeal that decision
according to the procedure described in the notice of
appeal rights that accompanied the decision. If you
believe the decision was based on discrimination, you may
file a complaint of discrimination using this form, but
even if we find that you were discriminated against, that
would not mean that the decision on your claim for benefits
would change. A decision can still be a correct
application of the law even if the decision-maker was
biased. The only way to get the benefits decision changed
is to file an appeal of that decision.”

After we receive an allegation of discrimination involving an
ALJ based on the categories discussed above, the Division of
Quality Service (or its designee) will assist the Office of the
General Counsel or its designee in its review of the allegation
of discrimination. The Division of Quality Service will prepare
a copy of its findings and supporting documents. We will use
the facts and documents stemming from the Division of Quality
Service's investigation to make a finding of discrimination or
non-discrimination.
lity Service (or its designee) will assist the Office of the
General Counsel or its designee in its review of the allegation
of discrimination. The Division of Quality Service will prepare
a copy of its findings and supporting documents. We will use
the facts and documents stemming from the Division of Quality
Service's investigation to make a finding of discrimination or
non-discrimination.

We should issue a decision within 180 days of receiving the
complaint. We may dismiss complaints for a lack of jurisdiction,
such as those that allege discrimination based solely on a
denial of benefits under SSA's program law and not on race,
color, national origin (including English language ability),
religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability or in
retaliation for having previously filed a civil rights complaint.
We will also dismiss complaints alleging discrimination on bases
other than those identified in the complaint form or letter.
Within 60 * days after a complainant receives our decision, he or
she may request reconsideration of our decision on or dismissal
of his or her civil rights complaint, and we should issue a
reconsideration decision within 60 days of receiving a request
for reconsideration.

Effective Date: This SSR is effective on February 28, 2013.

[1] For example, the Appeals Council does not use ethics or
personnel rules to determine whether an ALJ abused his or her
discretion. All employees, including our ALJs, must comply with
the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive
Branch (5 CFR 2635) and SSA's Standards of Conduct and Annual
Personnel Reminders, but these rules are not considered during
the Appeals Council's review of an ALJ's decision on a
disability benefits claim.
rsonnel rules to determine whether an ALJ abused his or her
discretion. All employees, including our ALJs, must comply with
the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive
Branch (5 CFR 2635) and SSA's Standards of Conduct and Annual
Personnel Reminders, but these rules are not considered during
the Appeals Council's review of an ALJ's decision on a
disability benefits claim.

[2] The ODAR Regional Office or DQS will notify the ALJ pursuant to
our contractual obligations. Our current contract governing
notification with the Association of Administrative Law Judges,
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers,
AFL-CIO became effective on August 31, 2001.

[*] Changed from 30 to 60 days by Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 72, page 22361, April 15, 2013.

## Nearby sections

- [SSR 00-2p SSR 00-2p: Rescinded](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_00_2p.md)
- [SSR 04-1p SSR 04-1p: Attestation as an Alternative Signature](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_04_1p.md)
- [SSR 13-1p SSR 13-1p: Titles II and XVI: Agency Processes For Addressing Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_13_1p.md)
- [SSR 16-1p SSR 16-1p: Rescinded](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_16_1p.md)
- [SSR 16-2p SSR 16-2p: Rescinded](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_16_2p.md)
- [SSR 17-1p SSR 17-1p: Titles II and XVI: Reopening Based on Error on the Face of the Evidence — Effect of a Decision By the Supreme Court of the United States Finding a Law That We Applied to Be Unconstitutional](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_17_1p.md)
- [SSR 17-4p SSR 17-4p: Titles II and XVI: Responsibility for Developing Written Evidence](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_17_4p.md)
- [SSR 19-1p SSR 19-1p: Titles II and XVI: Effect of the Decision in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Cases Pending at the Appeals Council](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_19_1p.md)
- [SSR 19-3p SSR 19-3p: Titles II and XVI: Requesting Reconsideration or Hearing by an Administrative Law Judge](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_19_3p.md)
- [SSR 22-1p SSR 22-1p: Titles II and XVI: Fraud and Similar Fault Redeterminations Under Sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_22_1p.md)
- [SSR 22-2p SSR 22-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Claims Involving the Issue of Similar Fault in the Providing of Evidence](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_22_2p.md)
- [SSR 60-6 SSR 60-6. INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER WHERE SUCH CRIME IS MISDEMEANOR UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAW](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_60_6.md)
- [SSR 60-21 SSR 60-21. FACT AND DATE OF DEATH -- DEATH BY DROWNING](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_60_21.md)
- [SSR 62-11 SSR 62-11. CORRECTION OF EARNINGS RECORD -- EVIDENCE OF WAGES](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_62_11.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_13_1p. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.