20 C.F.R. § 404.966

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2022 · leading case: Pallotta v. Comm Soc. Sec., 144 F. App'x 938 (3rd Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pallotta v. Comm Soc. Sec., 144 F. App'x 938 (3rd Cir. 2005). “See 20 C.F.R. § 404.966 . See also Tobak v. Apfel, 195 F.”

Lyall v. Cohen, 297 F. Supp. 606 (W.D. Va. 1969). “958 (a); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.966 . The hearing examiner found that the additional evidence did not change the facts and issues relevant to.”

Robert G. Raymond v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r (11th Cir. 2019). “20 C.F.R. § 404.966 . 17 Case: 17-14608 Date Filed: 07/09/2019 Page: 18 of 28 The Commissioner’s regulations prescribe a five-step sequential process to determine whether a claimant is disabled under the statute.”

Smith v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ind. 2019). “960 and 20 C.F.R. § 404.966 . Plaintiff further argues that the ALJ also failed to follow the binding mandate of Social Security Ruling SSR 83-12.”

Arington v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ind. 2020). “” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.966 (a), 416.1566(a). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified that regional or state numbers are not needed in making the “significant number” determination.”

Eicher v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ind. 2022). “” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.966 (a), 416.1566(a). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified that regional or state numbers are not needed in making the “significant number” determination.”

Brewster v. SSA, 2002 DNH 149 (D.N.H. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.966 and 416.1466. See also Transcript at 61 (letter notifying claimant of her selection for participation in this process).”

Smith v. SSA, 2003 DNH 037 (D.N.H. 2003). · cites it 2× “" 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.966 and 416.1466. For claimants participating in the program, an ALJ's adverse disability determination under either Title II or Title XVI of the Act can be appealed directly to federal district court, bypassing the need to seek intermediate review by the…”

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.