The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . Listing 112.05 is no longer called the "Mental Retardation" Listing. . . .
. . . 112.05 Intellectual Disability: Characterized by significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning . . .
. . . Barnett claims that these impairments meet or medically equal the criteria of Listing 112.05(D), which . . . Listing 112.05(D) has four requirements. . . . P., App. 1, § 112.05. . . . does not suffer from the “significantly subaver-age general intellectual functioning” that Listing 112.05 . . . These low scores, she claims, satisfy 112.05(D)’s first requirement as a matter of law. . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 112.05(D). . . .
. . . P, App. 1, 112.05. . . . record evidence supports that [the claimant’s] condition did not actually or functionally meet Listing 112.05 . . .
. . . improperly accorded weight to certain evidence; (2) T.R.C. met or equalled the criteria for Listing 112.05 . . . Listing 112.05 Next, T.R.C. argues that she meets or functionally equals Listing 112.05, Mental Retardation . . . P, App. 1, Listing 112.05 (2012). . . . In her counseled brief, T.R.C. does not specify under which section of Listing 112.05 she qualifies, . . . P, App. 1, Listing 112.05 (2013) with id. (2012). . . .
. . . erroneously determined that Claimant’s combination of impairments did not meet or medically equal Listing 112.05 . . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Rule 112.05. . . . Id. at § 112.05(D). . . . The claimant’s impairments do not meet listing 112.02 or 112.05. . . . July 26, 2011) (“[T]he ALJ’s failure to cite or analyze Listing 112.05 or address evidence favorable . . .
. . . He focuses on Listing 112.05 (mental retardation) and Listing 112.02 (organic mental disorders). . . . Listing 112.05 is “[c]haracterized by significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with . . . B, § 112.05. . . .
. . . the requirements for either Listing 112.11 for ADHD, Listing 111.02 A or B for seizures, or Listing 112.05 . . .
. . . The ALJ must provide adequate explanations with regard to § 112.05 including a discussion of whether . . . claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals § 112.05 of the . . . the ADHD and adjustment disorder (which were already found to be severe), meet or medically equal § 112.05 . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05. . . . To meet or equal Listing 112.05, for children of claimant’s age, claimant must demonstrate: D. . . .
. . . We affirm the district court’s decision that Z.N.F.’s impairment failed to meet Listing 112.05(D) and . . . Listing 112.05(D) Richard contends that Z.N.F. is disabled within the meaning of the Act and that the . . . As for the final prong of this analysis, Richard argues that Z.N.F.’s impairment met Listing 112.05(D . . . Jh Functional Equivalence If the child’s impairment does not medically meet Listing 112.05(D), the ALJ . . . s impairments (1) did not meet or medically equal Listing 112.05 and (2) did not functionally equal the . . .
. . . of the Listing that describes child mental retardation, 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1, § 112.05 . . . (“Listing 112.05”). . . . P, app. 1, § 12.05; id. § 112.05. . . . one of the additional criteria, to prove entitlement to disability benefits under Listing 12.05 or 112.05 . . . Jordan’s contention that she satisfied Listings 112.05 and 12.05 essentially ignores the requirements . . .
. . . The provision cited deals specifically with mental retardation under Listing 112.05, regarding mental . . . 112.00D(10) (stating that I.Q. scores "must ... be sufficiently current for accurate assessment under 112.05 . . . But Dragon’s claim has been made under Listing 12.05, not under Listing 112.05. . . . .
. . . testified, the ALJ upheld the Commissioner’s decision because Whymss did not meet or exceed Listing 112.05 . . . At issue in this case is Listing 112.05, which governs mental retardation in children under the age of . . . P, App. 1, 112.05. . . .
. . . the mental retardation listing, requiring an “additional and significant limitation of function,” § 112.05 . . .
. . . Under Impairment Listing 112.05, mental retardation is generally “[cjharacterized by significantly subaverage . . . P, Appx. 1 § 112.05. . . .
. . . holding "that-though the ALJ did not explicitly discuss why [Plaintiff] did not actually meet Listing 112.05 . . . substantial record evidence supports that [Plaintiff's] condition did not actually ... meet Listing 112.05 . . .
. . . Listing 112.05 involves mental retardation which is, “[characterized by significantly subaverage general . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05. . . . Commissioner, however, given the similarities between M.A.H’s symptoms and the criteria of Listing § 112.05 . . .
. . . P App. 1 § 112.05(c)-(e) (2010). . . . P App. 1 § 112.05 (2010), and it therefore does not contradict the ALJ’s conclusion. . . .
. . . DSM-IV), published by the American Psychiatric Association, as the definition of MR in listing 12.05 and 112.05 . . .
. . . . § 404 Subpart P App. 1 § 112.05. . . . First, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Listing 112.05(c) was met because Calvin’s full scale IQ score . . . additional and significant limitation on his functioning, thus meeting the requirements for Listing 112.05 . . . (R. 237); 20 C.F.R. § 404 Subpart P App. 1 § 112.05. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Dr. . . . Because Calvin has an IQ score of 50, he would appear to meet the severity requirement of Listing 112.05 . . .
. . . Code § PSC 112.05 (1995). . . .
. . . additional and significant work-related limitations of function; ... 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpart P, App. 1, § 112.05 . . . additional and significant work-related limitations of function; 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpart P, App. 1, § 112.05 . . . See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpart P, App. 1, § 112.05(B). III. . . .
. . . P, app. 1, § 112.05); see also Kidd v. Comm’r of Soc. . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appx. 1, § 112.05. . . . Plaintiff argues that he satisfies the criteria of Listings 112.05(D), 112.05(E), and 112.05(F). . . . Id. § 112.05(D). . . . As an initial matter, unlike Listings 112.05(D) and 112.05(E), the first prong of Listing 112.05(F) is . . . , e.g. 112.05(F). . . .
. . . regulations note: “IQ test results must also be sufficiently current for accurate assessment under 112.05 . . .
. . . P, App. 1, § 112.05 (“Listing 112.05”), based on Rowell’s IQ score. . . . At issue here is whether Rowell meets the requirements of Listing 112.05. . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05. . . . In relevant part to this case, section D of Listing 112.05 requires “[a] valid verbal, performance, or . . . Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir.1997) (considering, under the adult version of Listing 112.05 . . .
. . . impairment), the record does not show that her intelligence level was functionally equal to Listing 112.05 . . .
. . . P., App. 1 § 112.05, provides: “Mental Retardation: Characterized by significantly sub-average general . . .
. . . Turning to Step Three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not meet or medically equal Section 112.05 (“ . . . Second, she argues that the evidence of record demonstrates that she satisfies Listing 112.05 of the . . . In contrast, the ALJ in this case specifically identified the relevant Listing-Section 112.05, entitled . . . Listing 112.05 is entitled Mental Retardation, and states that the required level of severity for the . . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appx. 1, § 112.05. . . .
. . . Scott, 297 F.3d at 595 (“[b]y failing to discuss the evidence in light of Listing 112.05’s analytical . . .
. . . See § 112.00D(9) ("The IQ scores in listing 112.05 reflect values from tests of general intelligence . . .
. . . Plaintiff also claimed that she met the requirements for Listings 100.00 (Growth Impairment) and 112.05 . . .
. . . P, app. 1, § 112.05. . . .
. . . In 1992, the SSA determined that Jonathan met Listing 112.05 for mental retardation. . . .
. . . The parties focus on one specific listing, § 112.05(E) of 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Sub-part P, Appendix 1 . . . , Part B (“listing 112.05(E)” or “ § 112.05(E)”). . . . performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70.” § 112.05(E). . . . See § 112.05(E)(2). . . . The undersigned has considered the listings in general and specifically listing 112.05. . . .
. . . Under section 112.05 of the Listings, mental retardation is “[characterized by significantly subaverage . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05. . . . In relevant part, section D of Listing 112.05 requires “[a] valid verbal, performance, or full scale . . .
. . . These scores exceed the criteria of Listings 112.05 and 12.05 (Record 18). . . .
. . . P, app. 1, listing 112.05. (Admin. Tr. at 11.) . . . Moore’s assertion that Breanna’s impairments were functionally equivalent to any impairment in listing 112.05 . . . be sufficiently current for accurate assessment under [the applicable federal regulation, Listing] 112.05 . . .
. . . Listing 112.05 indicates that mental retardation is “Characterized by significantly subaverage general . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05. . . . In relevant part to this case, section D of Listing 112.05 requires “[a] valid verbal, performance, or . . . 493 U.S. 521, 530 n. 7, 110 S.Ct. 885, 891 n. 7, 107 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990) (noting in 1990 that Listing 112.05 . . .
. . . disabilities either met or were medically or functionally equal to mental retardation as listed in § 112.05 . . . The ALJ ruled that Neal did not meet or medically equal § 112.05 because the most recent test results . . . Moreover, the ALJ ruled that Neal’s test scores did not satisfy any of the subsections of § 112.05. . . . The mental retardation listing contained in § 112.05 describes mental retardation as “characterized by . . .
. . . The relevant medical listings for plaintiffs conditions are § 112.05 for mental retardation and § 112.11 . . . because it falls within the range listed in subsections D- and E of § 112.05. . . . In this case, the parties initially focus on Listing 112.05 — mental retardation in a child. . . . Subparts (D) and (E) of Listing 112.05, the criteria upon which Plaintiff relies, require a claimant . . . to demonstrate: he has either “valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70”, § 112.05 . . .
. . . case for further proceedings, directed the agency to disregard the diagnostic description in Listing 112.05 . . . The agency disagreed with that court’s interpretation that the elements of Listings 12.05 or 112.05 had . . .
. . . In determining that Allen did not meet the requirements of Listing 112.05(D), the ALJ found that Allen . . . See 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1, ¶ 112.05(D). . . . determination was sufficient to support the ALJ’s finding that Allen did not meet the requirements of Listing 112.05 . . . See 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Sub-part P, App. 1, ¶ 112.05(D). . . .
. . . The ALJ ignored Listing 112.05 D. The court refers to Appendix 1, Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. . . . separate occasions show plaintiff to be mentally retarded and qualified for benefits under Listing 112.05 . . . D and 112.05 C. . . . In addition to meeting the IQ requirement of 112.05 D plaintiff has been diagnosed with ADHD and oppositional . . . Listing 112.05 D falls under section 112.05 Mental Retardation characterized by significantly subaverage . . .
. . . medically equal” the following listed impairments: (1) Listing 112.04/mood disorders;- (2) Listing 112.05 . . . On appeal, the plaintiff did not contest the ALJ’s findings regarding listings 112.05 and 112.11, see . . .
. . . stating that “[although the ALJ did not specifically discuss [the] condition in the context of listing 112.05 . . .
. . . A valid verbal IQ score of 54, standing alone, may be sufficient to meet listing 112.05 for mental retardation . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05 (defining the listing of mental retardation as being “[cjharacterized by significantly . . . and relied, in part, on the psychologist’s conclusions to find that Na-tashia did not meet listing 112.05 . . . were not valid IQ scores for the purpose of meeting the listing for mental retardation under listing 112.05 . . . “IQ scores in listing 112.05 reflect values from tests of general intelligence that have a mean of 100 . . .
. . . The introductory paragraphs to “112.00 Mental Disorders” explain how to apply the listings: “Listing 112.05 . . . Listing 112.05 Mental Retardation states that it is “[characterized by significantly subaver-age general . . . P, app. 1, § 112.05 (2001). . Id. . Id. § 112.05D (emphasis added). . . . .
. . . , medically equals or functionally equals the impairment of “mental retardation” listed in sections 112.05 . . . that intelligence test scores must be sufficiently current for an accurate assessment under section 112.05 . . . failing to find that Kamea’s scores were within the necessary range to meet the criteria of section 112.05 . . .
. . . to address his impairments in relation to the specific criteria of mental retardation, under listing 112.05 . . . P, App. 1, § 112.05(D). . . . stating that “although the ALJ did not specifically discuss, [the] condition in the context of listing 112.05 . . . Gardner specifically argues that his impairments are medically equal to the criteria set forth in 112.05 . . . controllable by medication, cannot qualify as the required additional and significant limitation under 112.05 . . .
. . . district court rejected the Commissioner’s position that, in order to be found disabled under listing 112.05 . . . establish that his impairment satisfied the diagnostic description of mental retardation in listing 112.05 . . . awarded to Antonio on the ground that his impairments met the requirements of subpart D of listing 112.05 . . . Because Antonio did not assert a disability claim under listing 112.05 Mental Retardation, he was not . . . EVEN IF A CLAIM UNDER LISTING 112.05 HAD BEEN MADE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE ALJ’S DECISION . . .
. . . Jones’s IQ score meets the criteria of Listing 12.05(C) (adult) and 112.05(D) (child). . . . The phrase “work-related" does not occur in the parallel definition for children, § 112.05(D). . . . requirement of the mental retardation listing for adults (Listing 12.05(C)) and for children (Listing 112.05 . . .
. . . the listing for mental retardation based on several IQ subscores of 70: The requirements of section 112.05 . . . On appeal, Lamanuel contends that his impairment meets the requirements of fisting 112.05(D), that the . . . those standards in mind, we turn to the provision on which Lamanuel rests his claim for disability: 112.05 . . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Rule 112.05. . . . time the ALJ rendered a decision in this case, the Code of Federal Regulations stated that Listing 112.05 . . .
. . . Jefferson asserts that Ray Lee meets the requirements of listing 112.05, the listing for mental retardation . . . P, Part B, § 112.05. . . . Discussion The ALJ evidently determined that Ray Lee met the threshold requirement for •listing 112.05 . . .
. . . the ALJ accept the lowest of the verbal, performance and fuh-scale IQ scores when evaluation Listing 112.05 . . .
. . . Plaintiff’s arguments Plaintiff argues that (1) the ALJ did not properly evaluate her case under Listing § 112.05 . . . Commissioner’s regulations, IQ scores must be sufficiently current for accurate assessment under Listing § 112.05 . . . Defendant argues that plaintiff has not met the requirements of Listing § 112.05, because she has not . . .
. . . In this case, the parties focus on Listing 112.05— mental retardation in a child. . . . P., App. 1, § 112.05. . . . By failing to discuss the evidence in light of Listing 112.05’s analytical framework, the ALJ has left . . . After doing so, he must discuss his factual findings in light of Listing 112.05. . . . P., App. 1, § 112.00A (2000) ("Listing 112.05 (Mental Retardation) contains six sets of criteria, any . . .
. . . 37 South, Range 42 East intersects the Westerly right of way line of State Road A1A, a distance of 112.05 . . .
. . . Court Awarded Attorneys Fees 112.05[2] (2001); 10 Moore’s Federal Practice § 54.171 [2][a][iii] (Mathew . . .
. . . Jefferson argues that her daughter’s mental condition meets Listing 112.05. . . . P, App. 1, Listing 112.05. 1. . . . Part B of Listing 112.05 is, therefore, not applicable on this record. . . . Part C of Listing 112.05 requires a verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 59 or less. . . . The ALJ determined that Plaintiff met the first prong of Parts A and E of Listing 112.05. . . .
. . . Specifically, Guity does not have an impairment that met or equaled the requirements of Listing 112.05 . . . repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration. 20 C.F.R Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 § 112.05 . . .
. . . mental retardation, learning disability and deficient visual-motor skills did not meet or equal Section 112.05 . . . The Listings Listing Section 112.05 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 112.05 Mental Retardation . . .
. . . P, App. 1, § 112.05(D) [“Section 112.05(D)”] (Doc. # 13, p. 4). . . . Furthermore, the claimant’s school records indicate that the claimant is not disabled under Section 112.05 . . . Section 112.05(D) provides that: 112.05 Mental Retardation: Characterized by significantly subaverage . . .
. . . Blake’s contentions that Brian is disabled because he meets the criteria for mental retardation under § 112.05 . . . Although Brian does meet the first requirement for § 112.05(D) and (F) through his low IQ scores, Brian . . .
. . . contends Brownlee is disabled because he meets the listed impairment of mental retardation under § 112.05 . . . I § 112.05 (2001). . . . Because Shelton did not raise her claim under § 112.05(C) before the Commissioner or the district court . . . We reject Shelton’s claim under § 112.05(D), finding the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s contrary . . . To be disabled under § 112.05(D), Brownlee must have a “valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of . . .
. . . Section 112.05(D) of the listings is met when a claimant has a valid verbal, performance, or full scale . . . Plaintiff, therefore meets the medical requirements of listing 112.05 and is entitled to the benefits . . .
. . . Listing 112.05 provides: 112.05 Mental Retardation: Characterized by significantly subaverage general . . . P, App. 1, § 112.05. . . . Kidd argues that while she does not meet listing 112.05(d) (she had an IQ of 74), her impairments considered . . .
. . . Mental Retardation under § 112.05 Section 112.05 of the listings provides: Mental Retardation: Characterized . . . Paragraph C Paragraph C of § 112.05 provides that a claimant meets the requirements of being disabled . . . under § 112.05 is she has “[a] valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 59 or less.” . . . The resolution of this issue is important because, under Paragraph C of § 112.05, if Plaintiff has an . . . Paragraph A of § 112.05 provides that a claimant will meet the listings for “mental retardation” if at . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1, § 112.05. (The same standard applies to adults under 20 C.F.R. . . . Ardon, admitted that she did not know whether to apply § 112.05D or § 112.05 E. . . . 54, 191), and her testimony indicates uncertainty as to the definitions of mental retardation under 112.05 . . . and significantly, it is the lowest IQ score that is used in conjunction with listings § 12.05 and § 112.05 . . .
. . . Under Listing 112.05(E), a child has the disability of mental retardation if his IQ is measured between . . . Listing 112.05(E). . . . P, App. 1, Listing 112.05. . . . . Petitioner may also qualify as mentally retarded under Listing 112.05(D), which requires an IQ between . . . P., App. 1, Listing 112.05(D). . See Timothy S. . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Section 112.05 (1997) (Emphasis added). . . .
. . . Alderman correctly argues that the significant limitation under Section 112.05(C) need not be disabling . . .
. . . P, app. 1, § 112.05(D). . . . “a physical or mental impairment imposing an additional and significant limitation of fimction,” § 112.05 . . . Bowen, 797 F.2d 687, 690 (8th Cir.1986), and discussing the listing at § 112.05(C), which is the adult . . .
. . . P, app. 1, § 112.05(D) (1995). . . . the mental retardation listing, requiring an “additional and significant limitation of function,” § 112.05 . . .
. . . Briggs asserts that the ALJ erred in determining that she does not meet listing 112.05(D) (Mental Retardation . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05(D). . . . Although the ALJ did not specifically discuss Briggs’s condition in 'the context of listing 112.05(D) . . .
. . . P, App. 1 § 112.05(D) (1997). . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05(D) (1997). . . . .
. . . Listing 112.05, Mental Retardation, is “[c]haraeterized by significantly subaverage general intellectual . . . with deficits in adaptive functioning.” 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Part B, Listing 112.05 . . . Id. at Listing 112.05 A, Listing 112.02 B.2.a.d. . . . Listing 112.05 B-F. . An IFA completed on July 16, 1993, by J. . . .
. . . P, App. 112.05(C). . . .
. . . contends his impairments meet the Listings for childhood impairments: Part B, sections 112.04(A)(1)(g) and 112.05 . . . P, § 112.04 and § 112.05 . . . . Thus, the evidence is reviewed to determine if it meets the Listings of § 112.05. . . . regulations, IQ test results must be sufficiently current for an accurate assessment under section 112.05 . . . Delaney’s results, the claimant does not meet the Listings under § 112.05. . . .
. . . (reviewing a determination under the Child-Disability Listings and mentioning specifically section 112.05 . . . The language which the Zebley Court recognized as a functional criteria in section 112.05(C) of the Child-Disability . . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 § 112.05(D) (1992). . . .
. . . These calculations result in a negative $112.05; however, the plan provides for a minimum monthly benefit . . .
. . . 112.05, 112.16), the debtor’s interest in future trust income and principal is not an asset of the corporation . . .
. . . At Section 112.05, the manual provides for retirement, resignation, suspension, promotion, demotion, . . . Section 112.05(D) at page 3 of the manual provides in pertinent part: THE PROVISIONS HEREIN, INCLUDING . . .
. . . disorder,” or “Where significant adverse effects of medication interfere with major daily activities”); § 112.05 . . . impairment imposing additional and significant restriction of function or developmental progression.” § 112.05 . . .
. . . P, App. 1 § 112.05 A (1988). . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05 A (1988). . . .
. . . Listing § 112.05(C). . . .
. . . P, App. 1 § 112.05(A). . . . We may not say that Section 112.05(A) is either arbitrary or capricious. . . . In determining disability, Section 112.05(A) takes into account the nature of the impairment and its . . . Therefore, Section 112.05(A) must be upheld as a reasonable interpretation of the statutory definition . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05 provides in pertinent part: 112.05. Mental retardation A. . . .
. . . See § 112.05(C) of Appendix 1 (listing requirement of an I.Q. of 60-69 and the existence of an additional . . . Williamson has not satisfied the two requirements of section 112.05(C): first, the ALJ found that Williamson . . . Although the ALJ never reached the question of section 112.05(C), his separate factual findings demonstrate . . .
. . . . § 112.05-15(d), Commander Pluta testified that no emergency lighting was required because the escape . . .
. . . Claimant contends he meets listing 112.05, mental retardation, and listing 111.09(A) and (B), communication . . . Listing 112.05 reads in relevant part as follows: “Mental retardation — C. . . .
. . . Mental Retardation Under section 112.05 to Appendix 1 of Subchapter P, a person under age 18 suffers . . .
. . . Prior to April, 1979, plaintiff had met the standard listed in § 112.05(B), Part B, Appendix 1, which . . . regulations provide that a child shall be considered disabled if his IQ measures 59 or less, 20 C.F.R. § 112.05 . . . impairment impos[es] additional and significant restriction of function or developmental progression,” § 112.05 . . . developmental milestones generally acquired by children no more than one-half the child’s chronological age,” § 112.05 . . .
. . . complex disputes.” 16N J. von Kalinowski, Business Organizations: Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation § 112.05 . . .
. . . personal property were assessed at $5,889,006, giving rise to a total municipal tax liability of $47,-112.05 . . .
. . . Haupt & Co., 240 F.Supp. 10 (S.D.N.Y.1965), aff'd. 379 F.2d 884 (CA 2 1967); 6A Collier on Bankruptcy 112.05 . . .
. . . In an open drawer to the left of Brown was found another cigar box containing $112.05 and numerous slips . . .
. . . He therefore claims damages of $112.05. . . .
. . . It also set forth a counterclaim for $112.05 expended by it to make the crank case and core box conform . . .
. . . was concluded that- twenty mills Would produce, if collected in full, $32,996.00, an excess only of $112.05 . . .