The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . advanced age, the hearing officer found that he became disabled on August 27, 2013, following Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14. No doubt 18 days falls within "a few months." . . .
. . . P, App. 2, § 201.14; see id. at § 201.00 (g) ("Individuals approaching advanced age (age 50-54) may be . . .
. . . . § 201.14. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App'x 2, Rules 201.14-.15. . . .
. . . P, App. 2, § 201.14; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(d) (defining persons “closely approaching advanced . . .
. . . She also argues that the ALJ erred by not applying Rule 201.14 of the Medical Vocational Guidelines. . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.14 (requiring a finding of disability based on Plaintiffs vocational factors . . . P, App. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.14. . . . says she must be found disabled based on the ALJ’s own RFC finding and the application of Grid Rule 201.14 . . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14 (directing a finding of disability at age 50 based on a sedentary RFC, high school . . . undisputed that her exertional .abilities fell somewhere between grid rules 202.14 (light work) and 201.14 . . .
. . . treating opinions that Schofield had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work, Rule 201.14 . . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14. . . .
. . . . § 201.14. . . . The railroad contends that federal law— specifically, 40 C.F.R. § 201.14—permits it to operate retarders . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Rules 201.14 & 202.14. Therefore, the ALJ properly relied on the testimony of a VE. . . .
. . . Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14 Because the ALJ’s determination of the Plaintiffs residual functional . . . need not address the Plaintiff’s contention that he would be disabled under Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . 55), and his attorney briefly stated that under a theory of the case, “medical vocational guidelines 201.14 . . .
. . . .-' P, App. 2, Rules 201.12, 201.14. . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 201.14 (3d ed.2003) (discussing application of final judgment rule . . .
. . . Papesh cites Grid Rule 201.14 of Appendix 2 to Subpart P of Part 404, the Medical-Vocational Guidelines . . . The Commissioner makes no argument that Grid Rule 201.14 does not apply, but the ALJ stated that transferability . . . Although Grid Rule 201.14 appears to control, this issue is left for remand. Cf. Stewart v. . . . 587 (8th Cir.1992) (reversing and remanding for entry of judgment awarding benefits when Grid Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . Rule 201.14. . . . Id. at Rule 201.10, 201.14. Accordingly, if Dr. . . .
. . . skills and the capacity for sedentary work would be considered presumptively disabled under Grid Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . . § 404 Appendix 2 to Subpart P, Section 201.14. . . .
. . . The expert then made reference to the GRID and Rule 201.14, that is, a person who is approaching advanced . . .
. . . . §§ 404.1563 and 416.963 and that Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14 directed a finding of “disabled” under . . .
. . . This Court also finds Defendants’ citation to 28 Pa.Code § 201.14(b) to be unpersuasive because it is . . .
. . . Under Grid Rule 201.14, the ALJ would have been compelled to find Mr. . . .
. . . P, App’x II § 201.14. Further, the ALJ’s credibility determination was flawed. She found that Mr. . . .
. . . Capability Limited to Sedentary Work as a Result of Severe Medically Determinable Impairment(s), Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . P, App. 2 § 201.14 (providing that claimant between ages of 50 and 54 is disabled if limited to sedentary . . . P, App. 2 § 201.14, which the ALJ appears not to have recognized. . . .
. . . fiftieth birthday, she would qualify as disabled under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (Grid Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . Grid Rules 201.14 and 201.15 both apply to individuals who are closely approaching advanced age, are . . . Under Grid Rule 201.14, if the claimant’s previous work experience was “skilled or semiskilled” and those . . . Rather, she argues that, even though she had transferable skills, Grid Rule 201.14 should apply because . . . Rule 201.14 cannot apply, however, because, by definition, it only applies when an individual lacks transferable . . .
. . . Giles was disabled, the SSA Determination cited the SSA’s Vocational Rule 201.14. . . . Giles’s counsel explained the basis of the application of Vocational Rule 201.14 by the SSA, noting that . . . Giles (Vocational Rule 201.14), a person is totally disabled if he is over 50 years of age, cannot perform . . . application for Social Security disability benefits, which supports the application of Vocational Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . P., App. 2, Rule 201.14.) . . . P., App. 2, Rule 201.14. . . .
. . . date); rather, the disability designation changed because the applicable Medical-Vocational Rule (Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . Plaintiff then points to Grid Rule 201.14, 20 CFR Pt. 404, Subpt. . . . Therefore, had she been fifty years of age, as opposed to just shy of it, Grid Rule 201.14 would have . . . Grid Rule 201.14, 20 CFR Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. . . .
. . . sedentary work, entitling him to disability benefits pursuant to Medical-Vocational Guidelines Rule 201.14 . . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14 (directing that high school graduate or more who is closely approaching advanced . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 201.14 (3d ed.2003)). . . .
. . . Godfrey must be found to be disabled under Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14. . . . Godfrey’s age, education and work experience require a disabled finding under Rule 201.14. . . . Godfrey is disabled by application of Rule 201.14, the Court concludes that the Commissioner is obliged . . .
. . . evaluation of the relevant medical opinions led him to utilize the wrong table under Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14 . . . [Plaintiffs] work limitations fall squarely within the requirements of Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . P, app. 2, table 1, rules 201.10, 201.14; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(d) (DIB), 416.963(d) (SSI) ( . . .
. . . , but became disabled on that date— her fiftieth birthday — under a direct application of Grid Rule 201.14 . . . fiftieth birthday, January 14, 2009, under a direct application of Medical-Vocational (“Grid”) Rule 201.14 . . . Grid Rule 201.14 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, found in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App’x 2, Rule 201.14. . . . Part 404, Subpart P, App’x 2, Rule 201.14. A remand is in order. One other matter. . . .
. . . P, App 2, Rule 201.14. (Id.) . . . limited to the sedentary level-which would result in him "gridding out” as disabled pursuant to Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . P, App. 2 § 201.14 (2009). . . .
. . . P, Rule 201.12 & 201.14. This describes O’Neal as of her 50th birthday. . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, §§ 201.06, 201.14. . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Rules 201.00(g) & 201.14. That argument suffers from a fundamental flaw. . . .
. . . See Guidelines § 201.14-15. . . .
. . . that Plaintiff had “muscle, ligament & fascia disorders,” and was disabled pursuant to Vocational Rule 201.14 . . . The examiner’s reference to Vocation Rule 201.14 pertains to the Commissioner of Social Security’s Medical . . . Vocational Rule 201.14 provides that person should be found disabled if they have a maximum sustained . . . SSA’s application of Rule 201.14 implies that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform . . .
. . . Practice § 201.14 (3d ed.2003); Heffernan v. . . .
. . . As a result, at age fifty, on September 16, 2006, she met Rule 201.14 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines . . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14 (2006). Per 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. . . . on the previous discussion of the ALJ’s errors and based upon the Medical-Vocational Guidelines Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . person closely approaching advanced age (50-54), on March 12, 2007, the ALJ correctly applied Grid Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . limited to unskilled sedentary work, then Vander Molen “is entitled to an award of benefits based on Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . Finally, at Step Five the ALJ applied Rule 201.14 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines at 20 C.F.R. pt . . .
. . . significant numbers and, thus, was not disabled under the framework of Medical-Vocational Rules 201.21 and 201.14 . . .
. . . See D.C.Code §§ 24-201.13; 24-201.14. . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.14 (individual "closely approaching advanced age” with sedentary residual . . .
. . . semiskilled activities of other jobs, he concluded: “Section 404.1569 of the Regulations No. 4 and Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . person would be limited to sedentary work, and that the vocational grid rules — specifically, grid rule 201.14 . . . VOCATIONAL GRID RULE 201.14 DID NOT GOVERN THE ALJ’S DISABILITY DECISION Claimant’s final claim arises . . .
. . . for sedentary work, and the claimants age, education and work experience, Medical-Vocational Rules 201.14 . . . restrictions and limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using Rules 201.14 . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal PRACTICE § 201.14 (3d ed.2003)); see also Am. . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 201.14 (3d ed.2003)); see also Am. . . .
. . . Part 404, App. 2, Rule 201.14 (directing a finding of disability for a claimant who is closely approaching . . .
. . . should be given to Medical/Vocational rule 201.14, i.e. Mr. . . . economy; a finding of disabled is therefore reached within the framework of medical-vocational rule 201.14 . . .
. . . P., App. 2, Rules 201(g), 201.14, 201.15. . . .
. . . The ALJ held that as of March 6, 2000, Medical-Vocational rule 201.14 applied and directed a finding . . .
. . . P, App. 2 § 201.14. . . . fell between the sedentary and light ranges of work, and therefore did not exactly coincide with Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14. . . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14; see also id. § 201.00(g). Although the ALJ found that Mr. . . .
. . . P, Appx. 2, § 201.14. The case, therefore, should be remanded for an award of benefits. . . . P, App. 2, Section 201.14 as a framework, the ALJ concluded -that the plaintiff was not disabled within . . . The ALJ also referred to the Commissioner’s Medical-Vocational Guideline Rule 201.14 in concluding that . . . Grid Rule 201.14 is only applicable when the maximum sustained work capacity is limited to sedentary . . . P, App. 2, § 201.14. . . .
. . . She further points out that under Rule 201.14 — which when applicable requires a finding that the claimant . . .
. . . closely approaching advanced age without transferable skills if less than full high school education), § 201.14 . . .
. . . P, App. 2, § 201.14 (grid stating claimant aged 50-54 with high-school diploma but no transferable skills . . .
. . . See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpart P, app. 2, rule 201.14. . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14. . . .
. . . Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 201.14(d). . Southwest Software, Inc. v. . . .
. . . , July 1998 and August 2001, plaintiffs medical vocational profile matched the requirements of Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . age of 50, and is therefore no longer a “younger” individual, a mechanical application of Grid Rule 201.14 . . . should award benefits based on plaintiffs fiftieth birthday, together with the application of Grid Rule 201.14 . . . I note that Rule 201.14 provides that an individual with these same characteristics but whose previous . . .
. . . capability should have been found to be sedentary, leading to a finding of “disabled” under MVG Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . Pt. 220, App. 2, § 201.14. . . .
. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 201.14 (3d ed.2003) [hereinafter Moore’s]. . . .
. . . Rule 201.14 of the guidelines provides that a person who is unable to do past work, who is limited to . . .
. . . App. 2, Table No. 1, rule 201.14. . . .
. . . . § 404.1569, and Rule 201.14 of Appendix II to Subpart P of the Administrative Regulations Part 404. . . .
. . . Rule 201.06 or Rule 201.14. Uncontradicted medical opinions of treating physicians are controlling. . . .
. . . is limited to unskilled sedentary work, she is entitled to a finding of disability by virtue of rule 201.14 . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Tables 1-3 (Rule 201.14). . . .
. . . to Sedentary Work as a Result of Severe Medically Determinable Impairment(s),” we conclude that Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . contends that the ALJ erred in failing to find her disabled under Medical Vocational Rules 201.12 and 201.14 . . .
. . . . §§ 201.14, 201.15. . . .
. . . capable of performing light work; (3) he is disabled under Medical Vocational Guideline Rules 201.12 or 201.14 . . . Irby’s final claim is that he is disabled under Medical Vocational Guideline Rules 201.12 or 201.14. . . .
. . . Plaintiffs residual functional capacity, the ALJ should have looked to medical vocational guidelines rule 201.14 . . . Medical vocational guideline rule 201.14 directs a finding of disability. . . .
. . . . § 201.14 (standard for retarders); id. § 201.15 (standard for car coupling operations); id. § 201.16 . . .
. . . The district court determined that the bankruptcy court awarded 100% of the costs, thus awarding $89,-201.14 . . .
. . . The district court determined that the bankruptcy court awarded 100% of the costs, thus awarding $89,-201.14 . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Table 1, Rule 201.14. . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14. . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Table No. 1, Rule 201.14. . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.14. . . .
. . . who had significant nonexertional impairments including pain, was conclusively disabled under Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . At the initial level, the Secretary determined, based on Rule 201.14 of 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix . . . Benefits on October 29, 1981, and was granted benefits commencing on March 2, 1982, pursuant to Rule 201.14 . . .
. . . If the claimant has the RFC for only sedentary work, then the applicable grid rule, 201.14 of Appendix . . .
. . . skills as a result of his past work. 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Table No. 1, Rule 201.14 . . . Rule 201.14, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart 2; Richardson, 735 F.2d at 964. . . .