Res Judicata and Reopening Prior ALJ Decisions with Later Alleged Onset Dates

Direct Answer

The numbered sources provided do not contain the regulations, rulings, or precedential authority needed to address the res judicata / administrative finality analysis or the reopening standards for prior ALJ decisions. The sources consist exclusively of the Listing of Impairments (20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, §§ 1.15–13.28) and the Medical-Vocational Grid rules (App. 2, §§ 200.00, 201.01–201.07), which govern the merits of disability determinations—not the procedural doctrines of claim preclusion, administrative finality, or reopening.

Analysis

The operative legal framework for the question you raised resides in different regulatory provisions entirely:

• Administrative res judicata: 20 C.F.R. § 404.985 (Title II) and corresponding provisions, which address the binding effect of a final prior determination on subsequent applications involving the same facts and issues for the same period.
• Reopening and revision: 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.987–404.989, which specify the time limits and grounds (e.g., "good cause," "new and material evidence," or a clear error on the face of the evidence) under which a final determination may be reopened.
• Second application with later onset: SSR 91-5 and Acquiescence Rulings in certain circuits govern how adjudicators must treat a subsequent application alleging a later onset date when the prior period is administratively final and not reopened—principally, the earlier period remains binding and the later adjudicator may not reconsider it absent reopening, but the later period is adjudicated on its own merits.

None of these authorities appear in the source list. The listings and grid rules provided (e.g., Listings 3.02, 4.02, 11.02, 12.02; Grid Rules 201.01–201.07) speak to disability criteria, not to preclusion or reopening doctrine. For example, Grid Rule 200.00(a) describes how the grid framework operates when findings of fact coincide with rule criteria, but it does not address finality of prior adjudications [1].

Key Points

• The provided sources (Listings and Grid rules) are substantively limited to medical and vocational disability criteria and cannot support analysis of res judicata or reopening.
• A proper answer requires citation to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.985, 404.987–404.989, applicable SSRs, and circuit precedent—none of which were included.
• If you provide the relevant regulatory and ruling sources, a full practitioner-level analysis can be prepared.