When we have evidence that a representative fails to meet our qualification requirements or has violated the rules governing dealings with us, we may begin proceedings to suspend or disqualify that individual from acting in a representational capacity before us. We may file charges seeking such sanctions when we have evidence that a representative:
(a) Does not meet the qualifying requirements described in § 416.1505;
(b) Has violated the affirmative duties or engaged in the prohibited actions set forth in § 416.1540;
(c) Has been convicted of a violation under section 1631(d) of the Act;
(d) Has been, by reason of misconduct, disbarred or suspended from any bar or court to which he or she was previously admitted to practice (see § 416.1570(a));
(e) Has been, by reason of misconduct, disqualified from participating in or appearing before any Federal program or agency (see § 416.1570(a)); or
(f) Who, as a non-attorney, has been removed from practice or suspended by a professional licensing authority for reasons that reflect on the person's character, integrity, judgment, reliability, or fitness to serve as a fiduciary.
[63 FR 41418, Aug. 4, 1998, as amended at 71 FR 2877, Jan. 18, 2006; 83 FR 30858, July 2, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
Hilsdorf v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 724 F. Supp. 2d 330 (E.D.N.Y 2010).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1545 (a)(1). Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff remained capable of performing “sedentary to light work” during the relevant period.”
Caballero v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (M.D. Fla. 2020).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 416.1545 (a)(2), (e). This includes both severe and non-severe impairments, and the ALJ must then determine if the claimant can “meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.”
Amparo v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2019).
“20 C.F.R. § 416.1545 (a)(2), (e). An ALJ may not arbitrarily reject or ignore uncontroverted medical evidence.”
Fisk v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ind. 2021).
“2004); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1545 (a). The determination of a claimant’s RFC is a legal decision rather than a medical one.”
Fish v. O'malley (M.D.N.C. 2024).
“did not cite to 20 C.F.R. § 416.1545 [sic], titled ‘our [sic] [RFC],’ or SSR 96-8p.”
Garzoria v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (S.D. Tex. 2024).
“3d at 462 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.1545 (a)(1)). When forming the RFC, the ALJ is “required to consider the combined effects of all impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of sufficient severity.”
Velez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Va. 2022).
“20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1545 (a), 416.945(a). The RFC is an ALJ’s assessment—based on all relevant medical and other evidence—of “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [the claimant’s] limitations.”
Ward-Plaster v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2023).
“); See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1545 (a)(3). 11 Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of the evidence and the RFC and step five findings, the undersigned recommends the court affirm the ALJ’s decision.”
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.