William F. LITTLEFIELD v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “there is no allegation of bad faith, a dilatory attitude, or a lack of evenhandedness by the Secretary” in rejecting claim of unconstitutional delay
• contrasting delay of three years and nine months, with “shorter delays in processing claims [that] did not violate due process” including delays of up to two years
• rejecting claim based on a nine-month delay and collecting cases granting relief on the basis of an almost four-year delay but denying relief on the basis of delays of, inter alia, 19 months and two years
• nine-month delay in rejecting an AU’s recommended decision does not violate claimant’s right to due process of law
• similar notice held adequate to inform claimant of the nature and consequences of the AU’s recommended decision
• nine month delay between issuance of a recommended decision and the Appeals Council’s issuance of a final decision does not violate due process

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).