20 C.F.R. § 404.1581
Meaning of blindness as defined in the law
We will consider you blind under the law for a period of disability and for payment of disability insurance benefits if we determine that you are statutorily blind. Statutory blindness is defined in the law as central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the use of correcting lens. An eye which has a limitation in the field of vision so that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees is considered to have a central visual acuity of 20/200 or less. Your blindness must meet the duration requirement in § 404.1509. We do not consider certain felony-related and prison-related impairments, as explained in § 404.1506.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Quang v. NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 43 F.3d 1400 (10th Cir. 1994).
Quang v. NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 43 F.3d 1400 (10th Cir. 1994). “Nguyen argues that the district court erroneously reviewed the case under a de novo standard, and that had the court used the substantial evidence standard, it would have found that he established blindness under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1581 . Mr. Nguyen confuses two different standards…”
Fred R. BRADLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sec'y OF HEALTH & HUMAN Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 862 F.2d 1224 (6th Cir. 1988). “20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1581 . Accordingly, Bradley cannot be considered disabled due to blindness since he has 20/20 vision without corrective lenses in his right eye.”
David SEARS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 840 F.2d 394 (7th Cir. 1988). “02 ; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1581 (“statutory blindness” is “central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the use of a correcting lens”).”
REHR v. Barnhart, 431 F. Supp. 2d 312 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). “§ 416 (i)(l)(B); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1581 . Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted additional evidence to the Appeals Council suggesting that she was statutorily blind as of January 4,1999, and possibly earlier.”
Lucretia M. ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 872 F.2d 926 (9th Cir. 1989). “20 C.F.R. § 404.1581 (1988). 2 . The Senate Report does note that ‘‘[t]his definition of blindness is the definition in the Internal Revenue Code and is used by a number of governmental and private agencies.”
Homan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 84 F. Supp. 2d 814 (E.D. Tex. 2000). “See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1581 . An eye which has a limitation in the field of vision so that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees is considered to have a central visual acuity of 20/200 or less.”
Adams v. Bowen, 683 F. Supp. 231 (D. Or. 1988). “Rule IV provides that blind *233 ness is defined at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1581 . 20 C.F.R. § 404.130 (e).”
Russell v. Astrue, 626 F. Supp. 2d 921 (D. Minn. 2009). “He has past relevant work as a ride operator, machine operator, carpenter, and postal clerk.”
O'Brien v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:20-cv-00814 (D.N.M. Oct. 28, 2021). “03A; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1581 (“We will consider you blind under the law for a period of disability and for payment of disability insurance benefits if we 8 The only way to establish statutory blindness is by meeting—as opposed to medically equaling—Listing 2.”
Shiner v. Sullivan, 793 F. Supp. 1257 (D. Vt. 1991). “§ 416 (i)(l); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1581 . Because of her blindness, she qualified for a “period of disability” 6 beginning January 1, 1974.”
Leverett v. O'Malley (CONSENT), No. 2:23-cv-00400 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 16, 2024). “20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1581 , 416.981. The ALJ also considered the prior administrative medical finding of State agency medical consultant Gary Spitz, M.”
Miller v. Kijakazi, No. 3:23-cv-02911 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2024). “20 C.F.R. § 404.1581 . Although the ALJ in the instant case summarized 7 part of the Administrative Record in support of his step two denial of Plaintiff’s claim, that alone 8 was not sufficient to meet the “clear and convincing” standard required for discrediting testimony.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.