The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 202
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES TAX SIMPLIFICATION LAW

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 202.21

202.21 Effective dates; procedures for informing dealers of communications services of tax levies and rate changes.—Any adoption, repeal, or change in the rate of a local communications services tax imposed under s. 202.19 is effective with respect to taxable services included on bills that are dated on or after the January 1 subsequent to such adoption, repeal, or change. A municipality or county adopting, repealing, or changing the rate of such tax must notify the department of the adoption, repeal, or change by September 1 immediately preceding such January 1. Notification must be furnished on a form prescribed by the department and must specify the rate of tax; the effective date of the adoption, repeal, or change thereof; and the name, mailing address, and telephone number of a person designated by the municipality or county to respond to inquiries concerning the tax. The department shall provide notice of such adoption, repeal, or change to all affected dealers of communications services at least 90 days before the effective date of the tax. Any local government that adjusts the rate of its local communications services tax by emergency ordinance or resolution pursuant to s. 202.20(2) shall notify the department of the new tax rate immediately upon its adoption. The department shall provide written notice of the adoption of the new rate to all affected dealers within 30 days after receiving such notice. In any notice to providers or publication of local tax rates for purposes of this chapter, the department shall express the rate for a municipality or charter county as the sum of the tax rates levied within such jurisdiction pursuant to s. 202.19(2)(a) and (5), and shall express the rate for any other county as the sum of the tax rates levied pursuant to s. 202.19(2)(b) and (5). The department is not liable for any loss of or decrease in revenue by reason of any error, omission, or untimely action that results in the nonpayment of a tax imposed under s. 202.19.

History.—ss. 13, 58, ch. 2000-260; ss. 14, 38, ch. 2001-140.

F.S. 202.21 on Google Scholar

F.S. 202.21 on Casetext

Amendments to 202.21

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 202.21

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 202.21.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

B. MIDDLETON, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 299 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018)

. . . sedentary work, a finding of 'not disabled' would be directed by Medical-Vocational Rules 201.28 and 202.21 . . .

D. ARRINGTON, v. W. COLVIN,, 216 F. Supp. 3d 217 (D. Mass. 2016)

. . . full range of light work, a finding of “not disabled” would be directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

PAYNE, v. W. COLVIN,, 216 F. Supp. 3d 876 (N.D. Ill. 2016)

. . . that Payne could not be conclusively deemed “disabled” or “not disabled” under Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

M. BISCEGLIA, v. W. COLVIN,, 173 F. Supp. 3d 326 (E.D. Va. 2016)

. . . In this case, the ALJ found that Grid Rules 202.21 and 202.14 would direct a finding of “not disabled . . .

L. CASSELBURY, v. W. COLVIN,, 90 F. Supp. 3d 81 (W.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . worker, but found that Plaintiff was not disabled by applying the framework of Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

A. KESSLER, v. COLVIN,, 48 F. Supp. 3d 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . younger individual” who had the equivalent of a high school education, ALJ Lebrón turned to Section 202.21 . . .

MURPHY, v. W. COLVIN,, 759 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . of Vocational Grids Flawed At the final step of the disability analysis, the ALJ concluded that Rule 202.21 . . . According to Rule 202.21 of the medical-vocational guidelines, or “grids,” an individual with Murphy’ . . . No. 2, Rule 202.21. . . .

G. HOYT, Jr. v. W. COLVIN,, 553 F. App'x 625 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . P, App. 2 § 202.21; SSR 83-14, 1983 WL 31254, at *2 (1983); Haynes v. . . .

WELLS, v. W. COLVIN,, 727 F.3d 1061 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . P, App. 2, rules 202.21 and 202.14 (the grids), the ALJ concluded that Ms. . . .

COLLINS, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 960 F. Supp. 2d 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . The ALJ applied Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21, which directs a finding of “not disabled” for younger . . . P, app. 2, § 202.21. . . .

LEE, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 529 F. App'x 706 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . reasoned that “if Lee had the [RFC] to perform the full range of light work,” Medical Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

C. FORGIONE, v. HCA INC., 954 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (N.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 202.21(b) (for the Department of Energy, “the term ‘Employee of the DOE’ includes all officers and . . .

SCENTSY, INC. v. B. R. CHASE, LLC. a LLC. a, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D. Idaho 2013)

. . . . §§ 202.20(c)(2)(xi), 202.21(b). . . .

BRESLIN, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 509 F. App'x 149 (3d Cir. 2013)

. . . capacity to do light work and his age, education, and work experience, Breslin was not disabled under Rule 202.21 . . .

GARCIA, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 498 F. App'x 710 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . in the national economy on both the VE’s testimony and the SSA Medical-Vocational Guidelines, Rule 202.21 . . .

Jo MOLLER, v. J. ASTRUE,, 13 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . considered disabled, based on applying her facts to the grids, pursuant to Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

M. HENRY, v. J. ASTRUE,, 32 F. Supp. 3d 170 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . this case, the ALJ concluded that a finding of “not disabled” was directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

S. FARNHAM f k a S. v. J. ASTRUE,, 832 F. Supp. 2d 243 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . P.App. 2 Table No. 2, Rule 202.21 (“Rule 202.21”) (R. 23), based on the opinions of Dr. . . .

HATCHER, v. J. ASTRUE,, 802 F. Supp. 2d 472 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . lbs. frequently and 20 lbs. occasionally), the ALJ properly determined that Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

E. ROSADO, v. J. ASTRUE,, 713 F. Supp. 2d 347 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . P, App. 2, §§ 201.21-22, 202.21-22. . . .

KING, v. J. ASTRUE,, 564 F.3d 978 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . capacity for light work, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, Medical Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

A. BELL- SHIER, v. J. ASTRUE,, 312 F. App'x 45 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . Limited to Sedentary Work As A Result of Severe Medically Determinable Impairment(s)”) and Rule No. 202.21 . . . Under Rule Nos. 201.28 and 202.21, the claimant is considered not to have any transferable skills. . . .

E. CANDELARIO, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 547 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D.P.R. 2008)

. . . have not allowed her to perform the full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rules 202.16, 202.21 . . .

B. LIND, v. J. ASTRUE,, 530 F. Supp. 2d 456 (W.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . in the national economy, and that a finding of “not disabled” was therefore required under Grid Rule 202.21 . . .

R. DEWEY, v. J. ASTRUE,, 509 F.3d 447 (8th Cir. 2007)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 202.21. . . . The reader consulting the table referenced above, Rule 202.21, may be confused to find the word “Do.” . . .

JOPSON, v. J. ASTRUE,, 517 F. Supp. 2d 689 (D. Del. 2007)

. . . limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

A. VO, v. J. ASTRUE,, 518 F. Supp. 2d 715 (D.S.C. 2007)

. . . limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

MUNTZERT, v. J. ASTRUE,, 502 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (D. Ark. 2007)

. . . production assembly worker as that work is generally performed, or that, using Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

G. PALOMINO, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 515 F. Supp. 2d 705 (W.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . transferable skills from any past relevant work; he is not disabled as directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . . of the full range of light work, a finding of “not-disabled” is directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

D. DAVIS, v. J. ASTRUE,, 237 F. App'x 339 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . P, App. 2, rules 202.20 and 202.21, and the testimony of the VE, the ALJ denied benefits, concluding . . .

AJNOHA, a k a a k a v. JC PENNEY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, n k a, 480 F. Supp. 2d 663 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . . § 202.21 (describing contents of note of issue). . . .

C. MARTIN, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 501 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

. . . light work, and the claimants age, education and work experience, Medical-Vocational Rules 202.14 and 202.21 . . . limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using Rules 201.14, 201.21, 202.14 and 202.21 . . . Accordingly, using Rules 202.14, 202.21, 202.14 and 202.21 as a framework for decisionmaking, she is . . .

K. HALL, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 218 F. App'x 212 (3d Cir. 2007)

. . . age, education and work experience, the ALJ applied 20 C.F.R., Appendix 2, Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

GRAMLISCH, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 464 F. Supp. 2d 876 (E.D. Mo. 2006)

. . . The ALJ used Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 as a framework for his decision. . . .

W. MUSICO, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 183 F. App'x 162 (3d Cir. 2006)

. . . As explained by the ALJ, application of Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 directs a conclusion of “not disabled . . .

M. DASS, v. Jo BARNHART,, 386 F. Supp. 2d 568 (D. Del. 2005)

. . . limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

D. MONROE, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 372 F. Supp. 2d 976 (S.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . Based on the testimony of the vocational expert, and using Rule 202.21 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . . Based on the testimony of the vocational expert, and using Rules 202.14 and 202.21, Appendix 2, Sub-part . . .

M. BARRINGER, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 358 F. Supp. 2d 67 (N.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . The ALJ made this determination using Rule 202.21 of Table 2, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4 . . .

F. HURLEY, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 385 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . Accordingly, the ALJ applied Medical-Vocational Guidelines [“Grids”] Rules 202.21 — 201.22, which directed . . .

RAMSEY, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 117 F. App'x 638 (10th Cir. 2004)

. . . P, App. 2, table No. 2, rule 202.21 (the grids) as a framework, the ALJ concluded that appellant was . . . Applying Rule 202.21 of the grids, the ALJ stated that the rule “direct[s] a conclusion of disabled.” . . . Rule 202.21, however, directs a conclusion of not disabled. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. . . . P, App. 2, table No. 2, rule 202.21. . . .

O. WILLIAMS, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 338 F. Supp. 2d 849 (M.D. Tenn. 2004)

. . . The framework of Rules 202.20, 202.21 (before she turned age 50) and Rules 202.13 and 202.14 (after she . . .

E. WIRTH, v. Jo BARNHART,, 325 F. Supp. 2d 911 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

. . . P § 202.21). Plaintiff noted that by the time the case reached this court she was 51 years old. . . .

W. DRAKE, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, J. Dr. H., 323 F. Supp. 2d 449 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . . § 202.21 ("no action., shall be deemed ready for trial ... unless there is a first filed a note of . . .

WIRTH, v. Jo BARNHART,, 318 F. Supp. 2d 726 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

. . . P § 202.21. Plaintiff notes that she is now 51 years old (D.O.B. 2/2/53). . . .

BAGWELL, Jr. v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 338 F. Supp. 2d 723 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . Considering the claimant’s medical-vocational profile within the framework of Rules 202.21 and 202.14 . . .

MCDANIEL, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 375 F. Supp. 2d 975 (E.D. Cal. 2004)

. . . Thus, using Rules 202.20, 202.21, and 202.22, as a framework for decisionmaking, there are a significant . . .

ALEXANDER, v. Jo BARNHART,, 287 F. Supp. 2d 944 (E.D. Wis. 2003)

. . . However, at step five, he concluded, based on the testimony of the VE and using Grid Rule 202.21 as a . . . Rule 202.21 directs a finding of “not disabled” for younger individuals with a high school education . . .

MCCULLER II v. Jo BARNHART,, 72 F. App'x 155 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . perform a significant number of other jobs existing in the national and local economy pursuant to Rule 202.21 . . . the aforementioned residual functional capacity and the favorable vocational factor of his age, Rule 202.21 . . . only occasionally perform postural activities, such as kneeling, crouching, crawling or climbing, Rule 202.21 . . . had not taken any pain medication in the three weeks prior to the hearing, I find that even when Rule 202.21 . . .

D. STIGGINS, v. B. BARNHART,, 277 F. Supp. 2d 239 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . The ALJ then applied the Medical Vocational Guidelines (“the Grid Rules”) and found that Grid Rule 202.21 . . .

R. NELSON, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 252 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (D. Kan. 2003)

. . . background, and work experience, a framework application of Medical Vocational Guideline (Grid Rule) 202.21 . . .

D. BROWN, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Kan. 2003)

. . . limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21 . . .

R. BATES, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 222 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (D. Kan. 2002)

. . . residual functional capacity, age, education and past relevant work experience, the framework of Rules 202.21 . . .

PETERSON, v. Jo BARNHART, 219 F. Supp. 2d 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . [she] was not disabled during the relevant time period” pursuant to Rule 202.21 of the Medical-Vocational . . .

CRINER, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 208 F. Supp. 2d 937 (N.D. Ill. 2002)

. . . However, using Rule 201.21 or 202.21 as a framework, as supplemented by the VE’s testimony, the ALJ concluded . . .

ROBERTS, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 36 F. App'x 416 (10th Cir. 2002)

. . . The ALJ noted that Rules 202.21 and 202.22 of the medical-vocational guidelines (the “grids”) would direct . . . P, app. 2, table 2, Rules 202.21, 202.22. . . .

R. HENDERSON, v. Jo BARNHART,, 205 F. Supp. 2d 999 (E.D. Wis. 2002)

. . . In making the final determination, the ALJ concluded that Rule 202.21 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines . . .

AXILROD, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,, 799 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Without indicating what other work appellant was capable of performing, the hearing officer found “Rule 202.21 . . .

GISTER, v. G. MASSANARI,, 189 F. Supp. 2d 930 (E.D. Wis. 2001)

. . . . § 404.1569 and § 416.969, and Rules 202.21 and 202.22, Table No. 2, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . .

LAWSON, v. G. MASSANARI,, 231 F. Supp. 2d 986 (D. Or. 2001)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 202.21, compelled a decision of “not disabled” for a claimant of . . .

R. PITTMAN, v. G. MASSANARI,, 141 F. Supp. 2d 601 (W.D.N.C. 2001)

. . . vocational experience, and residual functional capacity for a full range of sedentary work,” under Rules 202.21 . . .

BROWN, v. A. HALTER,, 154 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (N.D. Ill. 2001)

. . . he has a high school education, the ALJ found that “section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rule 202.21 . . .

L. BIBBS, v. S. APFEL,, 3 F. App'x 759 (10th Cir. 2001)

. . . Further, the ALJ noted that Rule 202.21 of the medical-vocational guidelines (the “grids”) would direct . . .

F. NAUDAIN, v. S. APFEL,, 119 F. Supp. 2d 812 (C.D. Ill. 2000)

. . . experience, Section 404.1568 of Regulations No. 4, Section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16, and Rules 202.21 . . .

A. CAREY, v. S. APFEL,, 230 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2000)

. . . The ALJ was clearly in error when he relied on Medical Vocational Guideline 202.21, a fact that the majority . . . Specifically, Carey contends that the ALJ erroneously relied upon Medical-Vocational Guideline 202.21 . . . medical-vocational profile at least superficially approximated that set forth in Medical-Vocational Guideline 202.21 . . . Specifically, Carey contends that the ALJ erroneously relied upon Medical-Vocational Guideline 202.21 . . . Medical-Vocational Guideline 202.21 provides for a finding of no disability when an individual with a . . . mentioned the similarity between Carey’s vocational-medical profile and Medical-Vocational Guideline 202.21 . . .

BEDNAR, v. S. APFEL,, 90 F. Supp. 963 (N.D. Ill. 2000)

. . . and light jobs in the economy which Bednar could perform, as determined by Medical-Vocational rules 202.21 . . .

G. REECE, v. S. APFEL,, 92 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (D. Kan. 2000)

. . . work, and claimant’s age, education and work experience, Section 404.1469 and the framework of Rules 202.21 . . .

MARTONE, v. S. APFEL,, 70 F. Supp. 2d 145 (N.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . The ALJ then applied these factors to Rules 202.20, 202.21, and 202.22 of the medical-vocational guidelines . . .

K. KENT, v. S. APFEL,, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Kan. 1999)

. . . work, and claimant’s age, education and work experience, section 404.1569 and the framework of Rules 202.21 . . .

TACKETT, v. S. APFEL,, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999)

. . . P, app. 2, rules 202.12, 202.21. . . .

HILL, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 49 F. Supp. 2d 865 (S.D.W. Va. 1999)

. . . educational background, and work experience, Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rules No. 201.21 and 202.21 . . .

SEGRETS, INC. v. GILLMAN KNITWEAR COMPANY, INC., 42 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D. Mass. 1998)

. . . . § 202.21(a) (1997), Segrets attached a color photograph of the Blanket Stitch sweater and the Primitive . . .

L. AKERS, v. J. CALLAHAN,, 997 F. Supp. 648 (W.D. Pa. 1998)

. . . work, and the claimant’s age, education background, and work experience, Section 416.969 and Rules 202.21 . . .

DONALD BRUCE COMPANY, v. B. H. MULTI COM CORPORATION, a, 964 F. Supp. 265 (N.D. Ill. 1997)

. . . 202.20(c)(2)(xi)(A)(2) provides that the registration requirements for jewelry are set forth in Section 202.21 . . .

M. PEREZ, v. CHATER,, 17 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (C.D. Cal. 1997)

. . . Citing Rule 202.21 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. . . .

In KAMINE BESICORP ALLEGANY, L. P. KAMINE BESICORP ALLEGANY, L. P. v. ROCHESTER GAS ELECTRIC CO. KAMINE BESICORP ALLEGANY, L. P. v. ROCHESTER GAS ELECTRIC CO., 214 B.R. 953 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1997)

. . . Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court §§ 202.21 et seq.; N.Y. Civ. Prac.L. & R.3402). . . .

GIANCOLA, v. SHALALA,, 913 F. Supp. 638 (D. Mass. 1996)

. . . Using Rule 202.21 as a framework for decisionmaking, in conjunction with the vocational testimony, there . . .

STANISTREET, v. CHATER,, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 1995)

. . . that plaintiffs age, education and work experience matched the criteria described at rules 202.20 and 202.21 . . . is considered unskilled or claimant has no previous work experience (20 C.F.R. § 416.965); Section 202.21 . . .

BOCANEGRA, v. E. SHALALA,, 888 F. Supp. 115 (C.D. Cal. 1995)

. . . In fact, the ALJ stated that he was using grid Rule 202.21 as a “framework,” because he did not consider . . .

J. SIMMONS, II, v. UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,, 982 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1992)

. . . He is not disabled by Vocational Rule 202.21 [20 C.F.R. § 220 app. 2].” . . .

FRANKS, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 802 F. Supp. 1067 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . claimant had the capacity to perform a full range of sedentary work or light work Rules 201.28 and 202.21 . . .

F. KNIGHT, Jr. S. T. D. S. S. Jr. L. Dr. W. Y. N. S. Dr. Jr. v. STATE ALABAMA M. Jr. S. Jr. B. H. J. P. Dr. D. III, F. A. A. Sr. A. G. A M W. Dr. A M Jr. W. M. H. B. L. A. R. C. Dr. V. Dr. E. B. F. W. Jr. W. T. Jr. R. R. E. W. A. C. J. D. Jr. T. B. Jr. O. H. Jr. T. Jr. E. G. Jr. S. H. Jr. B. Dr. A. UNITED STATES v. STATE OF ALABAMA A M a a a a a a a a a a, 787 F. Supp. 1030 (N.D. Ala. 1991)

. . . See, STX 202.20; 202.21; 202.22; and 202.23 (setting forth the budget recommendations of the various . . .

CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. v. VIDEO MONITORING SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., 940 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 202.21(g). The record also does not reflect the inclusion of any such synopsis. . . . .

GRUNDBERG, v. UPJOHN COMPANY, a UPJOHN COMPANY, v. GRUNDBERG C. W. F. W. H. Jr. W., 137 F.R.D. 372 (D. Utah 1991)

. . . required by this section; or (iv) Permit the deposit of identifying material which does not comply with § 202.21 . . .

L. HAYS, Jr. v. W. SULLIVAN,, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1990)

. . . First, the AU correctly applied section 202.21 of the Grids to Hays because he is a younger individual . . .

A. CARLOCK, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 902 F.2d 1341 (8th Cir. 1990)

. . . The ALJ applied Rules 202.20 and 202.21 of the Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. . . .

D. MAYFIELD, v. SULLIVAN, M. D., 730 F. Supp. 180 (N.D. Ill. 1990)

. . . stressful to the point of aggravating plaintiff’s condition, the AU made the alternative finding that Rule 202.21 . . .

R. HARRELL, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 862 F.2d 471 (5th Cir. 1988)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 202.21, a claimant aged 18-49 with a high school education, no demonstrated transferable . . . Harrell argues that Rule 202.21 should not be mechanically applied to his claim. . . . Accordingly, if Harrell’s profile satisfies the criteria of Rule 202.21, the Secretary need not make . . . The inquiry then proceeds to the remaining criterion of Rule 202.21, Harrell’s capacity to engage in . . . an evidentiary basis for challenging the AU’s factual finding that his profile matches that of Rule 202.21 . . .

THOMAS, v. BOWEN,, 695 F. Supp. 987 (N.D. Ind. 1988)

. . . capacity for light work, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, Section 404.1569 and Rule 202.21 . . . which decisionmaking was proper and based upon plaintiffs age, education and work experience, .Rule 202.21 . . .

L. KREIE, v. BOWEN,, 656 F. Supp. 765 (D. Kan. 1987)

. . . .-1569 and Rule 202.21, Table No. 2, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 would direct a conclusion . . .

KELLEY, v. HECKLER,, 761 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . medical evidence, insofar as they would prevent him from performing light work; and that under Rule 202.21 . . .

KNIPE, v. M. HECKLER,, 755 F.2d 141 (10th Cir. 1985)

. . . Given this, Rule 202.21 of the Medical Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. . . .

L. ABAIR, Sr. v. SECRETARY, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 590 F. Supp. 1062 (D. Mass. 1984)

. . . However, the Secretary, having determined that plaintiff was capable of light work, applied Rule 202.21 . . .

SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (U.S. 1984)

. . . See 37 CFR §§ 202.20(c)(2)(ii) and 202.21(g) (1983). . . .

PACIFIC AND SOUTHERN COMPANY, INC. d b a WXIA- TV v. DUNCAN, d b a TV, 572 F. Supp. 1186 (N.D. Ga. 1983)

. . . . § 202.21(g). . . .

WILLIAMS ELECTRONICS, INC. a v. BALLY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, a, 568 F. Supp. 1274 (N.D. Ill. 1983)

. . . . § 202.21(b) (1982), of Hyperball. . . .

E. POWELL, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 691 F.2d 419 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, § 202.21 (1982). . . .

SANTISE, F. M. G. L. v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 676 F.2d 925 (3d Cir. 1982)

. . . school education and a semi-skilled work background, and therefore was “not disabled” pursuant to Rule 202.21 . . .

MIDWAY MFG. CO. v. ARTIC INTERNATIONAL, INC., 547 F. Supp. 999 (N.D. Ill. 1982)

. . . . § 202.21. . . .

E. POWELL, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 516 F. Supp. 1001 (W.D. Ark. 1981)

. . . The ALJ then applied Regulations 404.1513 and 416.913 and Rule 202.21 of Table No. 2 of Appendix II to . . .

SANTISE, v. HARRIS,, 501 F. Supp. 274 (D.N.J. 1980)

. . . Section 404.1513 and Rule 202.21 Table No. 2 of Appendix 2, Subpart P., Regulations No. 4 direct that . . .