Answer to application

Under 2204.402(a), the Secretary must file an answer within 30 days after service of an application.

• The 30-day clock starts when the application is served, not when it is filed with the court.

Under 2204.402(a), if the Secretary fails to file an answer within the 30-day period and has not requested an extension or filed a statement of intent to negotiate, that failure may be treated as consent to the award requested.

• The provision uses permissive language (“may be treated”), meaning the failure to file can be treated as consent but is not automatically labeled consent in every circumstance.

Under 2204.402(a), the Secretary can obtain more time by requesting an extension of time or by filing a statement of intent to negotiate under paragraph (b).

• Either step prevents the 30-day failure from being treated as consent while the extension or negotiations are pending.

Under 2204.402(b), if the Secretary and the applicant jointly file a statement of intent to negotiate, the time for filing an answer is extended for an additional 30 days.

• This joint filing automatically extends the deadline by 30 days from the original due date.

Under 2204.402(b), further extensions beyond the additional 30 days may be granted by the judge upon request.

• To get more time past the extra 30 days, a party must ask the judge for an extension.

Under 2204.402(c), the answer must explain in detail any objections to the award requested and identify the facts relied on in support of the Secretary's position.

• The answer must be specific about both the legal objections and the factual basis for those objections.

Under 2204.402(c), if the answer is based on alleged facts not already in the record, the Secretary must include with the answer either supporting affidavits or a request for further proceedings under 2204.405.

• This ensures any new factual claims are either supported by sworn statements or are sent to further fact-finding.

Under 2204.402(c), yes: when the answer alleges facts not already in the record, the Secretary must include supporting affidavits with the answer or instead request further proceedings under 2204.405.

• The rule gives two options—either affidavits to support the new facts or a motion for additional proceedings to develop the record.

Under 2204.402(a) and (b), filing a joint statement of intent to negotiate delays the answer by 30 days beyond the original 30-day period, giving a total of up to 60 days; any further delay requires the judge to grant additional extensions.

• Practically, that means 30 days to start, an automatic 30-day extension if negotiations are joint, and more time only if the judge approves it.

Under 2204.402(b), yes: the Secretary and the applicant may jointly file a statement of their intent to negotiate a settlement.

• The rule explicitly contemplates a joint filing by both sides to pause the deadline while they try to settle.

Under 2204.402(a), the 30-day period is measured from service of the application.

• That means the Secretary's timing obligations begin when the application is served, not when it is filed with the agency or court.

Under 2204.402(c), objections in the answer should clearly state each basis for opposing the award and identify the specific facts that support each objection.

• Good practice: list each objection separately, cite the supporting facts for that objection, and attach affidavits if the facts are not already in the record.

Under 2204.402(c), the Secretary should request further proceedings under 2204.405 when the answer depends on facts that are not already in the record and cannot be adequately supported by affidavits.

• A request for further proceedings asks the judge to allow additional fact-finding instead of resolving the matter on the existing record.

Under 2204.402(c), failing to include supporting affidavits or a request for further proceedings when alleging facts outside the record does not comply with the rule’s requirements.

• The provision requires one of those two things; omitting both means the answer does not meet the procedural requirement and may be vulnerable to challenge.

Under 2204.402(c), the Secretary may include supporting affidavits with the answer or request further proceedings under 2204.405; the rule allows either approach to support new factual claims.

• Combining both is generally unnecessary but not prohibited; the rule requires at least one of these actions when new facts are alleged.

Under 2204.402(a), the consequence is discretionary: failure to file an answer within 30 days may be treated as consent to the award requested rather than automatically treated that way.

• This means a missed deadline creates the possibility of being treated as consent, but the rule does not mandate automatic consent in every case.

Under 2204.402(b), a jointly filed statement of intent to negotiate extends the time to file an answer by 30 days, preventing the Secretary’s failure to meet the original 30-day deadline from being treated as consent while negotiations proceed.

• This procedural step preserves the Secretary’s right to contest the award while the parties try to reach a settlement.

Under 2204.402(c), the answer must identify the facts relied on in support of the Secretary's position in detail—meaning the facts should be specific enough to show the factual basis for each objection.

• Vague or generic statements of dispute are not adequate; specify the facts and, if those facts are outside the record, include affidavits or request further proceedings under 2204.405.

Under 2204.402(a), the Secretary should prepare and plan to file a timely answer within 30 days after service, or promptly seek an extension or file a statement of intent to negotiate if settlement discussions are likely.

• Acting quickly preserves options: timely answer, an agreed negotiating pause under 2204.402(b), or a judge-approved extension if needed.