The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . At Step Five, the ALJ stated that Grid rules 201.21 and 201.28 would direct a finding of "not disabled . . . Part 404, Subpart P, App'x 2, rules 201.21-.22 ("younger individual age 45-49") and 201.28-.29 ("younger . . . Grid rule 201.21 states that a "younger individual age 45-49" with a high school education, skilled or . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Table No. 1, Rule 201.21. . . .
. . . could specify the evidence supporting the assessed limitations and consider Medical Vocational Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . P, App. 2 § 201.21. . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Rule 201.21; and a vocational expert’s (VE’s) identification of séveral . . .
. . . P., App. 2, § 201.21. . . .
. . . Order and to all waivers and other provisions as required by Commission Rule of Practice and Procedure 201.21 . . .
. . . considered presumptively disabled under Grid Rule 201.14, a 49-year old would not, under Grid Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . education, and work experience, a finding of ‘not disabled’ is directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 201.21 . . . challenged, nor has either party even mentioned, the ALJ’s alternate step-five determination that Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . education, and work experience, Breslin was not disabled under Rule 202.21 (for light work) and Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . 2010, a finding of “not disabled” was directed under the framework provided by Medical-Vocational Rule 201.21 . . . As such, the ALJ applied the “framework” of Medical-Vocational Rule 201.21 and concluded that Plaintiff . . .
. . . jobs exist in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform, the ALJ used Medical-Vocational Rules 201.21 . . .
. . . The ALJ pointed to Rule 201.21, which suggested a finding of “not disabled.” (R. 55). . . .
. . . P, App. 2 § 201.21 as a framework, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning . . .
. . . (Tr. at 21, citing Rules 201.27-29, 201.21 and 201.22). . . .
. . . The ALJ determined that Rule 201.21 and 201.28 would direct a finding of “not disabled” if Plaintiff . . . I find that the ALJ’s reliance upon SSR 85-15 and Grid Rule 201.21 and 201.28 was inappropriate and constituted . . .
. . . Specifically, the Appeals Council concluded the ALJ erred by relying on Rule 201.21 of the Medical-Vocational . . .
. . . At step five, the ALJ determined that Medical-Vocational Rules 202.28, 201.21, and 202.2 (in 20 C.F.R . . .
. . . Applying rule 201.21 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. . . .
. . . P, App. 2, §§ 201.21-22, 202.21-22. . . .
. . . range of sedentary work, a finding of ‘not disabled’ would be directed by Medical-Vocational Rules 201.21 . . .
. . . that “[biased on a residual functional capacity for a full range of sedentary work, Rules 201.18 and 201.21 . . .
. . . performance of her past relevant work, but at step five, the ALJ concluded that Medical-Vocational rule 201.21 . . .
. . . Utilizing Grid Rule 201.21, a younger person, under the age of fifty (50), with the Plaintiffs RFC, for . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.21 and 201.27. . . .
. . . in significant numbers and, thus, was not disabled under the framework of Medical-Vocational Rules 201.21 . . .
. . . and Schettino's education and previous work experience should be deemed "disabled”), with id. at Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . limitations at the sedentary exertional level, Justice would be considered not disabled according to rule 201.21 . . .
. . . In this case, Rule 201.21 of Appendix 2, Sub-part P, Regulations No. 4 applies and indicated that the . . . other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy under the provisions of Rule 201.21 . . . other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy under the provisions of Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of sedentary work, using Medical-Vocational Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . restrictions and limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using Rules 201.14, 201.21 . . .
. . . The claimant’s medical-vocational profile corresponds with Rule 201.21, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . .
. . . P, App. 2, rule 201.21 (the grids), would direct a finding of not disabled, direct application was not . . .
. . . Based on the testimony of the vocational expert, and using Rule 201.21, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . .
. . . In making the fifth step finding, the ALJ relied on Medical-Vocational Rules 201.21 and 201.22. . . .
. . . Based on Rule 201.21, of the medical vocational guidelines, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is not disabled . . .
. . . At step five of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ used the Grid Rules 201.21, 201.27 and 201.28 to direct . . .
. . . capacity for sedentary work and Plaintiffs age, education, and work experience, Medical-Vocational Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . (citing Medical-Vocation Rules 201.21 & 201.28). C. . . .
. . . Thus, Grid Rule 201.21 directed a finding of “not disabled.” . . .
. . . 49), and educational level (GED), the ALJ concluded that plaintiff was not disabled under Grid Rule 201.21 . . . Thus, Grid Rule 201.21 directed a finding of “not disabled.” See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, App. 2, Subpt. . . . Finally, after applying Medical-Vocational Rule 201.21 (“Grid Rule”), the ALJ determined that the plaintiff . . . determined that the plaintiffs vocational profile and RFC coincided with every factor of Grid Rule 201.21 . . . As such, the ALJ’s application of Grid Rule 201.21, alone was not appropriate. . . .
. . . intact and not compromised by any nonexertional limitation, the ALJ concluded that Rules 201.20 and 201.21 . . .
. . . P, App. 2, rules 201.18 & 201.21; (3) the ALJ failed to give controlling weight to her treating physician . . .
. . . Even if the claimant were limited to no more than the full range of sedentary work, Rules 201.21 and . . .
. . . education, and work experience, a finding of “not disabled” is directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . step-four RFC finding, the ALJ found at step five that claimant was not disabled under either Rule 201.21 . . . P, app. 2, Rules 201.21, 201.28. . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 201.21. . . .
. . . to consider plaintiffs nonexertional limitations and as such, application of medical-vocational rule 201.21 . . . The ALJ applied medical-vocational rule 201.21, and determined that plaintiff could perform the full . . . significantly erode the occupational base, application of the medical-vocational rules, such as rule 201.21 . . .
. . . Utilizing Medical Vocational Rule 201.21, Table 1, the ALJ considered Dailey’s age, educational background . . .
. . . Therefore, using Grid Rule 201.21 as a framework for her decision, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff was . . . Rule 201.21 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. . . .
. . . concluded that a finding of “not disabled” would be reached by application of Medical-Vocational Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . of transferra-ble skills, that plaintiff was “not disabled” as a result of Medical-Vocational Rule 201.21 . . . The factual findings of plaintiffs age, education and residual functional capacity correspond to Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . However, using Rule 201.21 or 202.21 as a framework, as supplemented by the VE’s testimony, the ALJ concluded . . .
. . . claimant’s age, educational background, and work experience, Sections 404.1569 and 416.969 and Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Table No. 1, Rule 201.21. . . .
. . . P, app. 2, Rule 201.21. . . . The ALJ met this burden by relying on Rule 201.21 of the grids, which indicates that a significant number . . .
. . . P.App. 2, § 201.21. . . .
. . . assess Henderson’s residual functional capacity and apply his findings to the criteria set out in Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . The ALJ then applied grid rule 201.21 which directed a finding of “not disabled.” . . . Based on her age, education, work experience and RFC, the ALJ applied grid 201.21 and found Plaintiff . . .
. . . . §§ 201.21-.27. . . .
. . . age, educational background, and work experience, Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rules No. 201.21 . . .
. . . Accordingly, considering plaintiffs age, education and work experience, and using Rule 201.21 of Table . . .
. . . electrician, and a residual functional capacity for sedentary work, Rules 201.28 and/or 201.29 and Rules 201.21 . . .
. . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rule 201.21 of Table No. 1, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . .
. . . capacity to perform the full range of sedentary work, Section 404.1569 of Regulation No. 4 and Rules 201.21 . . .
. . . Accordingly, under Rule 201.21 of the “Grid,” LaPlante was not disabled for purposes of receiving either . . .
. . . Therefore, the ALJ cited to appendix rules 201.21 and 201.27 (20 C.F.R. Subpt. . . .
. . . Under Rule 201.21, Table No. 1, the ALJ found Lloyd not disabled when he last met the earning requirements . . .
. . . P, Appendix 2, Rule 201.21, 201.22. . . . The ALJ referred to Rule 201.21 and 201.22 of the regulations which provide that individuals between . . . Pt. 404, Subpart P, App. 2, §§ 201.21, 201.22 (1993). . . .
. . . . § 201.21(f). . . . .
. . . for sedentary work, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, section 404.1569 and Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . Section 200.00(a), Appendix 2 of Regulations No. 4 and Social Security Ruling 83-11) Rules 201.21, 201.22 . . . Since the claimant’s medical-vocational profile matches the above factors, Rules 201.21, 201.22, 201.28 . . . Reference to Rule(s) 201.21, 201.22, 201.28 and 201.29, Table No. 1, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . .
. . . At this point, the ALJ applied Rule 201.21 of the grids to Ms. Smalls’ case. . . . Rule 201.21 applies to a “younger individual” (45-49 years) with a high school education or more and . . . Smalls was not disabled because, according to Rule 201.21, there are “sedentary” jobs in sufficient numbers . . .
. . . impairments further diminishing the occupational base administratively noticed in connection with Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . for sedentary work, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, section 404.1569 and Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 201.21. . . . education, work experience, and capacity for a full range of sedentary work, the ALJ concluded that Rule 201.21 . . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.21. The record supports this application of the grid. . . . semiskilled work experience whose skills are not transferable to sedentary work is “not disabled” under Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . . § 404.1569 and Grid Rule 201.21, Pt. 404, Subpt. . . .
. . . The AU then applied Rules 201.21 and 201.28 as set forth in Table 1, Subpart P, Appendix 2. . . . Rule 201.28 is identical to Rule 201.21 except it is for individuals aged 18 to 44. II. A. Mr. . . . However, transferability of skills is not an issue under Rules 201.21 and 201.28. . . . Rules 201.21 and 201.28 take into account the fact that an applicant’s skills are nontransferable. . . . Rules 201.21 and 201.28. . See footnote 2. . . .
. . . work experience, Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and 416.969 of Regulations No. 16, and Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . notwithstanding Plaintiff’s nonexertional visual impairment, applied the grid and concluded that Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . See Rule 201.21, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P. . . .
. . . Given Buttron’s status as a younger individual with one year of college, the AU applied Rule 201.21 of . . .
. . . Applying Rule 201.21 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, of the Regulations, he found that Tamborra was not disabled . . .
. . . the commencement of employment a rule book containing this rule or its quite-similar successor, Rule 201.21 . . . When Hoe arrived with the supervisors, Rule 201.21 was. read to him, he was ordered to prepare for a . . . for examination”; that the district court grant a declaratory judgment that the enforcement of Rule 201.21 . . . plaintiff class; that the district court grant a declaratory judgment that the enforcement of Rule 201.21 . . . of an action to pay damages to a third party as a result of complying with an order to enforce Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . The AU committed an error of law in finding No. 9 of his decision, in which he found that Rule 201.21 . . . Although it does not affect the result, we note that the ALJ’s findings refer to Rule 201.21 as applicable . . .
. . . corresponding table in Appendix 2, and determined that her characteristics fit the criteria of Rule 201.21 . . .
. . . Compare Rule 201.21 with Rule 201.14 of Appendix 2. . . .
. . . It appears that rule 201.21 would actually be the rule applicable to plaintiff in this table since in . . . The ALJ found the plaintiff capable of sedentary work, a criteria of both Rule 201.24 and 201.21 of table . . .
. . . . §§ 201.17 (g) (2), 201.21. Section 17 (a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. . . .
. . . Rule 21(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. 201.21(f), allows a member who was not present . . .
. . . Rule 21(d), Securities and Exchange Commission Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. 201.21(d). . . .
. . . . § 201.21(e) (1964), specifically provides for the filing of a petition for rehearing before the Commission . . .
. . . an upper limit to the prices that may be approved by EOA for purchases in bulk of commodities (see § 201.21 . . .
. . . and published in the Federal Register, 14 F.R. 2166, are as follows: “Subpart D — Price Provisions “§ 201.21 . . . an upper limit to the prices that may be approved by ECA for purchases in bulk of commodities (see § 201.21 . . .
. . . companies, New York Insurance Law, Consolidated Laws of New York, c. 28, § 244, and Wisconsin Statutes, § 201.21 . . .
. . . companies, New York Insurance Law, Consolidated Laws of New York, c. 28, § 244, and Wisconsin Statutes, § 201.21 . . .