20 C.F.R. § 404.966
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2022 · leading case: Pallotta v. Comm Social Security
Pallotta v. Comm Social Security (2005)
“See 20 C.F.R. § 404.966 . See also Tobak v. Apfel, 195 F.”
Lyall v. Cohen (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. Social Security Administration, Commissioner (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. Commissioner of Social Security (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. Commissioner of Social Security (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. Commissioner of Social Security (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)
“” 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)
“" 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.