The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . to all 6,975 EBT transactions that were made during the review period, SS Grocery's average is still 201.23% . . .
. . . Lender filed a timely motion for rehearing arguing, inter alia, that pursuant to section 201.23 of the . . . Lender argues that, since section 201.23 renders the promissory note exempt from the payment of excise . . . Pursuant to section 201.23, because the subject promissory note was executed by a foreign company, the . . . The statute provides: 201.23 Foreign notes and other written obligations exempt. (1) There shall be exempt . . . note is a foreign note that meets the criteria for exemption from excise taxes pursuant to section 201.23 . . .
. . . Byes is illiterate and limited to sedentary work, he would still be found “not disabled” under rule 201.23 . . .
. . . See '649 patent col.201.23. Dr. . . .
. . . Part 404 Subpart P, App. 2, Table 1, Rules 201.23-201.29. . . .
. . . The ALJ applied Medical-Vocational Rule 201.23 and found plaintiff not disabled. (Tr. at 21.) . . . Rule 201.23 directs a decision of “not disabled” for a claimant who is a younger individual (age 18 through . . . Id., § 201.23. . . .
. . . full range of sedentary activity, he did not err in using Medical-Vocational Guideline (“Grid Rule”) 201.23 . . . because Appellant could not perform the full range of sedentary activity, he could not rely on Grid Rule 201.23 . . . Instead, the ALJ properly used Grid Rule 201.23 as a frame of reference and relied on the testimony of . . .
. . . Here, the ALJ erred when applying Grid rule 201.23 to find that plaintiff was not disabled because clearly . . .
. . . . § 201.23(d). . . .
. . . Whether this ease is considered under rule 201.23 (“Illiterate”) or rule 201.24 (limited education), . . . P, App. 2, Tbl. 1, Rules 201.23-201.24. . . .
. . . If actually illiterate, Hensley’s claim should have been analyzed under Rule 201.23 and the ALJ should . . . See id. at Rule 201.23. . . . It is true, as the District Court correctly noted, that under Rule 201.23, a claimant aged 18-44, who . . . In the first instance, Rules 201.23 and 201.24 both reference § 201(h), which, in the “sedentary work . . . Thus, while a claimant who fits Rule 201.23’s criteria is still presumed to be “not disabled,” the presumption . . .
. . . . § 201.23(a). . . . and the FDA may also still require an applicant to develop a pediatric drug formulation. 21 C.F.R. § 201.23 . . . existing treatments for pediatric patients for one or more of the claimed indications.” 21 C.F.R. § 201.23 . . . injunction to declare that the product is “misbranded or an unapproved new drug or unlicensed biologic.” § 201.23 . . . See 21 C.F.R. § 201.23(c)(3). . . . .
. . . for the full range of (unskilled) sedentary work was not significantly compromised, and, using Rule 201.23 . . .
. . . plaintiffs vocational profile and capacity for sedentary work place him within the framework of Rule 201.23 . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, §§ 201.23, 201.24, 201.25, 201.26, 201.27, 201.28. . . .
. . . first time in this Circuit we are called upon to address the interpretation of the word “or” in Rule 201.23 . . . P, App. 2, § 201.23. . . . Rule 201.23 applies, inter alia, to those disability claimants with an educational level, described as . . . At issue in this case is the. meaning of the “or” in Rule 201.23’s description of “education.” . . . Rule 201.23 joins two descriptions of educational status with an “or.” . . .
. . . P, Appendix 2, §§ 201.23, 201.24 (1994). . . .
. . . plaintiffs residual functional capacity for sedentary work corresponds with medical-vocational Rule 201.23 . . . from both parties by this Court on the issue of whether the application of medical-vocational Rule 201.23 . . . As a result, plaintiff argues that since medical-vocational Rule 201.23 requires that the claimant be . . . in English, the fact that she is both illiterate and unable to communicate in English precludes Rule 201.23 . . . Acquiescence Ruling 86-3(5) necessitates the finding that medical-vocational Rule 201.23 applies regardless . . .
. . . age, education, past relevant work experience, and residual functional capacity, the AU applied Rule 201.23 . . . Rule 201.23 of this Table commands that a person of claimant's age, education, and previous work experience . . .
. . . He cites Rule 201.23 of the Medical Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. . . .
. . . Using the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the Grid), Table No. 1, Rule 201.23, Pt. 404, Subpt. . . .
. . . was forty-four years and seven months old when she applied for disability benefits, technically Rule 201.23 . . .
. . . RULE 201.23 Having determined that substantial evidence within the record supports no other conclusion . . . than that the plaintiff is illiterate and has an unskilled work experience, rule 201.23 must be the . . . Rule 201.23 directs a conclusion of “not disabled” for illiterate persons who are capable of sedentary . . . Likewise, there can be no dispute that prior to October 1987, the plaintiff fell into rule 201.23’s age . . . Accordingly, the court concludes that use of rule 201.23, or any other rule for individuals under age . . .
. . . claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work, so that application of Rule 201.23 . . .
. . . Using Rule 201.23, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2 and 20 C.F.R. 404.1569, as guidelines, and in concurrence . . .
. . . Moreover, the AU noted that Section 404.1569 of Regulation No. 4, and Rule 201.23, Table No. 1 of Appendix . . .
. . . range of sedentary work as of June 30, 1977, nevertheless pursuant to Section 404.1520(f), and Rules 201.23 . . .
. . . The claimant also contends that the Secretary erred by mechanically applying rule 201.23 of the Medical . . . The record indicates that the Secretary relied on Rule 201.23 of the Medical Vocational grids to support . . . Rule 201.23 identifies claimants who (1) range in age from 18-44 years, and (2) are illiterate or unable . . . ALJ based his denial on Rule 201.23 of Table I of Appendix II of Subpart P & I of Regulations Nos. 4 . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 201.23 (1983). . . .
. . . unskilled claimants aged 50 and over granted benefits), with 20 C.F.R. subpart P, app. 2, §§ 201.18, 201.23 . . .
. . . Martinez argues the AU misapplied Rules 201.23, 201.24 and 201.25 of Appendix 2. . . . Rule 201.23 provides that an individual with Martinez’ physical handicaps who is illiterate or unable . . . Martinez argues that because he is both illiterate and unable to communicate in English, Rule 201.23 . . . The lowest category Rule 201.23 requires that the claimant be illiterate or unable to communicate in . . . illiterate and unable to communicate in English, he does not fall within the criteria set out in Rule 201.23 . . .
. . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rules 201.23 and 201.24 of Table No. 1, Appendix 2, Subpart . . .
. . . See §§ 201.23 and 201.24, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. . . .
. . . the evidence before him, and also based upon a directed finding under Regulation § 404.1569 and Rules 201.23 . . .
. . . The Table 1, Rules 201.23 to 201.29 would apply to plaintiff’s age category, “Younger Individual age . . .
. . . Applying Rule 201.23 of Table 1, 20 CFR 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, the ALJ (as did the district court . . . Gory contends that the ALJ erred in applying Rule 201.23 of Table 1 to his disabilities because he claims . . . Therefore, the ALJ and the district court correctly applied Rule 201.23 to find Gory was not disabled . . .
. . . Based on his findings, the ALJ determined that Rule 201.23 of Table 1 applied and directed a conclusion . . . Rule 201.23, found to be applicable here, reads as follows: Table No. 1 - Residual Functional Capacity . . . Work Experience Decision 201.23 Younger Illiterate Unskilled Not individual or unable or None Disabled . . .
. . . . §§ 416.1564-1568, and Rule 201.23, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2. . . .
. . . Section 404.1569 and Rule 201.23 Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Sub-part P, Regulations No. 4, direct that . . . non-exertional impairment which would have precluded the use of grids found in Section 404.1569 and Rule 201.23 . . .
. . . The AU went on to hold (Tr. 18) that Plaintiff was not disabled, applying Rules 201.26 and 201.23 of . . . the residual capacity to perform sedentary work, and that it was proper for the ALJ to apply Rules 201.23 . . .
. . . See Grid, Rules 201.18, 201.23. . . .
. . . ) resulted in a not disabled determination under the grids. 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, App. 2 § 201.23 . . .
. . . . § 416.913 (1981) and 20 C.F.R., subpart P, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Rule 201.23 (hereinafter Appendix . . .
. . . RESULT OF SEVERE MEDICALLY DETERMINED IMPAIRMENT(S) Rule_Age Education Previous Work Experience Decision 201.23 . . . claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors coincide with all the criteria of Rule(s) 201.23 . . . This error is not material since the ALJ applied rule 201.23 which is applicable to illiterate claimants . . .
. . . Administrative Law Judge denied the claim for benefits, finding that “Regulation 404.1513 and Rule 201.23 . . . He then applied Rule 201.23 of Appendix 2 (finding it relevant in view of Minuto’s age, educational background . . . Though Rule 201.23 of Appendix 2 was applicable to Minuto’s case in light of his age, education and previous . . . The mechanical application of Rule 201.23 was inappropriate in light of the fact that the footnote to . . . was capable of performing some particular job despite his disability, the ALJ simply employed Rule 201.23 . . .
. . . Based on claimant’s exertional limitations, only Regulation 416.913, Rules 201.23 and 201.18, Table No . . .
. . . The ALJ very mechanically applied Regulation 404.1513, Rule 201.23, table 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, . . . Regulation No. 4 and Regulation 416.913, Rule 201.23, table 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart I, Regulation No . . .
. . . . §§ 201.23, 401.10, 37 F.R. 1012-1013 (January 21, 1972). . . .
. . . sustained were painful and the plaintiff expended in hospital services and Doctor bills and medicines $201.23 . . .
. . . C. 1G/AI 201.23 22 Jul 1948 Subject: Complaint of Captain William B. . . .
. . . . §§ 201.1 to 201.23 as amended January 8, 1943> 8 Fed.Reg. 393— 401 provide, in §§ 201.10 and 201.27 . . .
. . . . §§ 201.1 to 201.23 as amended January 8, 1943, 8 Fed. . . .
. . . . § 234; 50 C.F.R. 201.1-2, 201.4; Cum.Supp. 201.6-11; 1946 Supp., 201.23-26; 1947 Supp., 201.25a. . . .
. . . . § 234; 50 C.F.R. 201.1-2, 201.4; Cum.Supp. 201.6-11; 1946 Supp., 201.23-26; 1947 Supp., 201.25a. . . .
. . . contracts for supplies and materials, including a contract with the Southern Electric Company for $201.23 . . .
. . . levy $211.93, retained $10.70 in payment of his fees and costs and paid over to the Stone Company $201.23 . . . It was the right to recover of the bank $201.23 and the sheriff’s fees for collecting this amount. . . .
. . . Blunt for $3,-201.23 and costs. . . .