The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS

Chapter 112
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 112.05

112.05 Retirement; cost-of-living adjustment; employment after retirement.—

(1)(a) Whenever any state official or state employee has attained the age of 70 years or more and has served the state as either an official or employee, or both, for as much as 20 consecutive years or more or for an aggregate time of 30 years or more, or whenever any state official or employee, irrespective of age, has served the state as either an official or employee, or both, for 30 consecutive years or more, or for as much as an aggregate of 35 years or more, such official or employee may retire from office as such official or employee with the right to be paid, and shall be paid monthly on his or her own requisition during the remainder of his or her natural life one-half the amount of the average monthly salary received during the last 10 years of such service; and sufficient money to meet the requirements of this section is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the State Treasury not otherwise appropriated. Provided, that military service in the Armed Forces of the United States shall be computed as a part of the time specified hereinabove as entitling a state official or employee to the benefits of this section. This section shall apply only to persons retired or persons who are on a state payroll June 30, 1953, and remain continuously on a state payroll until eligible to retire. This section shall not affect any state official or employee who has already retired under any retirement act, except that no Cabinet officer qualifying shall receive less than $4,500 per year.

(b)1. Any state official or state employee who, as of January 1, 1976, has served the state as either an official or employee, or both, for 29 consecutive years, irrespective of age, and who has a terminal or critical illness, which illness is certified by two physicians licensed in this state as terminal or critical, shall be eligible for early retirement. The benefits accruing to any such person under this section shall be reduced by five-twelfths of 1 percent for each complete month by which such retirement precedes the 30 years of service required under paragraph (a).

2. Any state official or employee eligible to retire pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph may retire from office as such official or employee with the right to be paid, and shall be paid monthly on his or her own requisition, during the remainder of his or her natural life, one-half the amount of the average monthly salary received during the last 10 years of service, less the actuarial reduction provided for in subparagraph 1.

(c) Upon the death of a retired state officer or employee receiving monthly benefits under this section, the monthly benefits shall be paid through the last day of the month of death and shall terminate on that date.

(2) An annual cost-of-living adjustment shall be made to the monthly benefit payable to retirees who are retired under this section pursuant to the provisions of s. 121.101.

(3) Any person who is retired under this section may be employed by an employer who does not participate in a state-administered retirement system and may receive compensation from such employment without limiting or restricting in any way the retirement benefits payable to such person.

(4)(a) Any person who is retired under this section may be reemployed by any private or public employer after retirement and receive retirement benefits and compensation from his or her employer without limitation, except that no person may receive both a salary from reemployment with any agency participating in the Florida Retirement System and retirement benefits under this chapter for a period of 12 months immediately subsequent to the date of retirement.

(b) Any person to whom the limitation in paragraph (a) applies who violates such reemployment limitation and is reemployed with any agency participating in the Florida Retirement System prior to completion of the 12-month limitation period shall give timely notice of this fact in writing to the employer and to the division; and the person’s retirement benefits shall be suspended for the balance of the 12-month limitation period. Any person employed in violation of this subsection and any employing agency which knowingly employs or appoints such person without notifying the Department of Management Services to suspend retirement benefits shall be jointly and severally liable for reimbursement to the retirement trust fund of any benefits paid during the reemployment limitation period. To avoid liability, such employing agency shall have a written statement from the retiree that he or she is not retired from a state-administered retirement system. Any retirement benefits received by such person while reemployed during this limitation period shall be repaid to the retirement trust fund, and the retirement benefits shall remain suspended until such repayment has been made. Any benefits suspended beyond the reemployment limitation period shall apply toward the repayment of benefits received in violation of the reemployment limitation.

(c) An employer, upon employment of any person who has been retired under a state-administered retirement program, shall pay retirement contributions in an amount equal to the unfunded actuarial accrued liability portion of the employer contribution which would be required for a regular member of the Florida Retirement System.

(d) The limitations of this subsection apply to reemployment in any capacity with an employer as defined in s. 121.021(10), irrespective of the category of funds from which the person is compensated.

History.—s. 1, ch. 12293, 1927; CGL 242; s. 1, ch. 17274, 1935; s. 1, ch. 20499, 1941; s. 1, ch. 22828, 1945; ss. 1, chs. 28147, 28148, 1953; s. 1, ch. 74-303; s. 1, ch. 76-212; s. 1, ch. 80-126; s. 2, ch. 80-130; s. 1, ch. 81-307; s. 31, ch. 83-217; s. 19, ch. 84-266; s. 1, ch. 90-274; s. 3, ch. 95-146; s. 683, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 96-368; s. 12, ch. 99-255.

Note.—Former s. 121.001.

F.S. 112.05 on Google Scholar

F.S. 112.05 on Casetext

Amendments to 112.05

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 112.05

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 112.05.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

C. TORRES- PAG N, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 899 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2018)

. . . Listing 112.05 is no longer called the "Mental Retardation" Listing. . . .

BURTON v. A. BERRYHILL,, 267 F. Supp. 3d 520 (E.D. Pa. 2017)

. . . 112.05 Intellectual Disability: Characterized by significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning . . .

BARNETT D. B. a v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 573 F. App'x 461 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . 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. . . .

RIVERA, o b o S. M. H. v. COLVIN,, 9 F. Supp. 3d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 112.05(D). . . .

WARE o b o J. P. v. W. COLVIN,, 997 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (N.D. Ala. 2014)

. . . P, App. 1, 112.05. . . . record evidence supports that [the claimant’s] condition did not actually or functionally meet Listing 112.05 . . .

T. R. C. BOYD, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 553 F. App'x 914 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . 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). . . .

COLEMAN J. C. a v. W. COLVIN,, 981 F. Supp. 2d 749 (N.D. Ill. 2013)

. . . 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 . . .

F. PORTER, v. W. COLVIN,, 525 F. App'x 760 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . 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. . . .

HUGHES, T. H. a v. J. ASTRUE,, 493 F. App'x 594 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . the requirements for either Listing 112.11 for ADHD, Listing 111.02 A or B for seizures, or Listing 112.05 . . .

HAMEDALLAH o b o E. B. v. J. ASTRUE,, 876 F. Supp. 2d 133 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . 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. . . .

RICHARD, Z. N. F. v. J. ASTRUE,, 480 F. App'x 773 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . 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 . . .

JORDAN, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 470 F. App'x 766 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . 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 . . .

DRAGON, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 470 F. App'x 454 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . 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. . . . .

GRAY, WHYMSS, No. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 454 F. App'x 748 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . 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. . . .

M. MONROE, v. J. ASTRUE,, 848 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Minn. 2011)

. . . the mental retardation listing, requiring an “additional and significant limitation of function,” § 112.05 . . .

HENDERSON, o. b. o. N. T. v. J. ASTRUE,, 401 F. App'x 449 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . Under Impairment Listing 112.05, mental retardation is generally “[cjharacterized by significantly subaverage . . . P, Appx. 1 § 112.05. . . .

JACKSON K. J. v. J. ASTRUE,, 734 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (N.D. Ga. 2010)

. . . 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 . . .

L. HICKMAN, M. A. H. v. J. ASTRUE,, 728 F. Supp. 2d 168 (N.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . 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 . . .

K. JEFFRIES o b o T. J. a v. J. ASTRUE,, 723 F. Supp. 2d 185 (D.D.C. 2010)

. . . P App. 1 § 112.05(c)-(e) (2010). . . . P App. 1 § 112.05 (2010), and it therefore does not contradict the ALJ’s conclusion. . . .

BLANCAS v. J. ASTRUE,, 690 F. Supp. 2d 464 (W.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . DSM-IV), published by the American Psychiatric Association, as the definition of MR in listing 12.05 and 112.05 . . .

WOODHOUSE o b o TAYLOR, Jr. v. J. ASTRUE,, 696 F. Supp. 2d 521 (D. Md. 2010)

. . . . § 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 . . .

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 90 Fed. Cl. 714 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . Code § PSC 112.05 (1995). . . .

S. WASHINGTON, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 659 F. Supp. 2d 738 (D.S.C. 2009)

. . . 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. . . .

J. BORUFF, o b o v. J. ASTRUE,, 648 F. Supp. 2d 932 (E.D. Mich. 2009)

. . . P, app. 1, § 112.05); see also Kidd v. Comm’r of Soc. . . .

GUTHRIE, v. J. ASTRUE,, 604 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2009)

. . . 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). . . .

A. HARROLD, v. J. ASTRUE,, 323 F. App'x 114 (3d Cir. 2009)

. . . regulations note: “IQ test results must also be sufficiently current for accurate assessment under 112.05 . . .

TURBERVILLE, o. b. o. ROWELL, Jr. v. J. ASTRUE,, 316 F. App'x 891 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . 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 . . .

JACKSON, S. v. J. ASTRUE,, 314 F. App'x 894 (8th Cir. 2008)

. . . impairment), the record does not show that her intelligence level was functionally equal to Listing 112.05 . . .

SCOTT, On SCOTT, v. J. ASTRUE,, 529 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2008)

. . . P., App. 1 § 112.05, provides: “Mental Retardation: Characterized by significantly sub-average general . . .

CONWAY, TOLEN, v. J. ASTRUE,, 554 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . 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. . . .

M. KENEFICK, v. J. ASTRUE,, 535 F. Supp. 2d 898 (N.D. Ill. 2008)

. . . Scott, 297 F.3d at 595 (“[b]y failing to discuss the evidence in light of Listing 112.05’s analytical . . .

ENGLAND, v. J. ASTRUE,, 490 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2007)

. . . See § 112.00D(9) ("The IQ scores in listing 112.05 reflect values from tests of general intelligence . . .

N. SCOTT, v. J. ASTRUE,, 474 F. Supp. 2d 465 (W.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Plaintiff also claimed that she met the requirements for Listings 100.00 (Growth Impairment) and 112.05 . . .

CACERE o b o v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 189 F. App'x 59 (3d Cir. 2006)

. . . P, app. 1, § 112.05. . . .

PAGAN, DELGADO, v. B. BARNHART,, 409 F. Supp. 2d 217 (W.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . In 1992, the SSA determined that Jonathan met Listing 112.05 for mental retardation. . . .

SMITH, E. S. D, a v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 157 F. App'x 57 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . 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. . . .

HENRY, o. b. o. R. v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 156 F. App'x 171 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . 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 . . .

G. WILLIAMS, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 399 F. Supp. 2d 640 (E.D. Pa. 2005)

. . . These scores exceed the criteria of Listings 112.05 and 12.05 (Record 18). . . .

MOORE, MOORE, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 413 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . 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 . . .

GIBBS, o b o v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 130 F. App'x 426 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . 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 . . .

NEAL, M. WALKER, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 405 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . 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 . . .

TATE o b o L. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 368 F. Supp. 2d 661 (E.D. Mich. 2005)

. . . 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 . . .

BARNES, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 116 F. App'x 934 (10th Cir. 2004)

. . . 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 . . .

PHILLIPS, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 113 F. App'x 644 (5th Cir. 2004)

. . . 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). . . .

MATTHEWS O B O DIXON, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 339 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (N.D. Ala. 2004)

. . . 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 . . .

WARE o b o v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 357 F. Supp. 2d 134 (D.D.C. 2004)

. . . 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 . . .

GARRETT, MOORE, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 366 F.3d 643 (8th Cir. 2004)

. . . stating that “[although the ALJ did not specifically discuss [the] condition in the context of listing 112.05 . . .

SCALES, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 363 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2004)

. . . 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 . . .

BROWN o b o v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 311 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Kan. 2004)

. . . 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). . . . .

ELAM, GOLAY, a v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 348 F.3d 124 (6th Cir. 2003)

. . . , 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 . . .

PEPPER, GARDNER, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 342 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2003)

. . . 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 . . .

WALKER, a v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 72 F. App'x 355 (6th Cir. 2003)

. . . 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 . . .

K. JONES, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 335 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2003)

. . . 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 . . .

BLAKES, ON BEHALF OF WOLFE, Jr. a v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 331 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2003)

. . . 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, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 64 F. App'x 136 (10th Cir. 2003)

. . . 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 . . .

SHERIFF, a A. v. Jo BARNHART,, 244 F. Supp. 2d 412 (W.D. Pa. 2002)

. . . the ALJ accept the lowest of the verbal, performance and fuh-scale IQ scores when evaluation Listing 112.05 . . .

WEATHERSPOON, v. G. MASSANARI,, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (E.D. Mo. 2002)

. . . 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 . . .

SCOTT, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 297 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2002)

. . . 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 . . .

SHORE VILLAGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, I. Jr., 824 So. 2d 208 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . 37 South, Range 42 East intersects the Westerly right of way line of State Road A1A, a distance of 112.05 . . .

APPLEGATE, v. UNITED STATES,, 52 Fed. Cl. 751 (Fed. Cl. 2002)

. . . Court Awarded Attorneys Fees 112.05[2] (2001); 10 Moore’s Federal Practice § 54.171 [2][a][iii] (Mathew . . .

JEFFERSON o b o L. SSN XXX- XX- XXXX v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (N.D. Okla. 2002)

. . . 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. . . .

SAMBULA, a a v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 285 F. Supp. 2d 815 (S.D. Tex. 2002)

. . . 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 . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 203 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . 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 . . .

GILES, o b o S. DOWDELL, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (M.D. Ala. 2002)

. . . 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, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 28 F. App'x 597 (8th Cir. 2002)

. . . 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 . . .

SHELTON, BROWNLEE, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 24 F. App'x 623 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . 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 . . .

W. FUGET, Jr. v. G. MASSANARI,, 144 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (S.D. Iowa 2001)

. . . 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 . . .

KIDD, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 7 F. App'x 483 (6th Cir. 2001)

. . . 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 . . .

OBERTS L. OBERTS, v. A. HALTER,, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (E.D. Mo. 2001)

. . . 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 . . .

HALL LEE, v. APFEL,, 122 F. Supp. 2d 959 (N.D. Ill. 2000)

. . . 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 . . .

RIVERA o b o v. S. APFEL,, 99 F. Supp. 2d 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . 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. . . .

NETTLES o b o v. S. APFEL,, 64 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (M.D. Ala. 1999)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Section 112.05 (1997) (Emphasis added). . . .

E. ALDERMAN, v. S. CHATER,, 40 F. Supp. 2d 367 (N.D.W. Va. 1998)

. . . Alderman correctly argues that the significant limitation under Section 112.05(C) need not be disabling . . .

RUCKER RUCKER, v. S. APFEL,, 141 F.3d 1256 (8th Cir. 1998)

. . . 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 . . .

BRYANT, Sr. BRYANT, Jr. v. S. APFEL,, 141 F.3d 1249 (8th Cir. 1998)

. . . P, app. 1, § 112.05(D) (1995). . . . the mental retardation listing, requiring an “additional and significant limitation of function,” § 112.05 . . .

BRIGGS, v. J. CALLAHAN,, 139 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 1998)

. . . 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) . . .

ANDERSON, v. J. CALLAHAN, Ph. D., 981 F. Supp. 1258 (E.D. Mo. 1997)

. . . P, App. 1 § 112.05(D) (1997). . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05(D) (1997). . . . .

HART THOMAS SSN XXX- XX- XXXX v. S. CHATER,, 963 F. Supp. 835 (W.D. Mo. 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. . . .

A. PETERMAN, v. S. CHATER,, 946 F. Supp. 734 (N.D. Iowa 1996)

. . . P, App. 112.05(C). . . .

WARE WARE, a v. E. SHALALA,, 902 F. Supp. 1262 (E.D. Wash. 1995)

. . . 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. . . .

DAVIS, v. SHALALA,, 985 F.2d 528 (11th Cir. 1993)

. . . (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). . . .

R. GODWIN, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA,, 980 F.2d 323 (5th Cir. 1992)

. . . These calculations result in a negative $112.05; however, the plan provides for a minimum monthly benefit . . .

In ST. JOSEPH S HOSPITAL, MARINE BANK OF SPRINGFIELD, v. ST. JOSEPH S HOSPITAL, N., 133 B.R. 453 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. 1991)

. . . 112.05, 112.16), the debtor’s interest in future trust income and principal is not an asset of the corporation . . .

WILLIAMS, v. CASTLEWOOD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, 755 F. Supp. 956 (D. Colo. 1991)

. . . 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 . . .

SULLIVAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. ZEBLEY, 493 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1990)

. . . 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 . . .

SMITH, SMITH, v. BOWEN,, 867 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1989)

. . . P, App. 1 § 112.05 A (1988). . . . P, App. 1 § 112.05 A (1988). . . .

WILLS, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 686 F. Supp. 171 (W.D. Mich. 1987)

. . . Listing § 112.05(C). . . .

SMITH, SMITH, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 656 F. Supp. 954 (E.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . 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. . . .

WILLIAMSON, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 796 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1986)

. . . 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 . . .

M. GOSNELL, v. SEALAND SERVICE, INC. M. GOSNELL, v. SEALAND SERVICE, INC., 782 F.2d 464 (4th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 112.05-15(d), Commander Pluta testified that no emergency lighting was required because the escape . . .

DIAZ, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 746 F.2d 921 (1st Cir. 1984)

. . . 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. . . .

WIER, P. WIER, a v. M. HECKLER,, 734 F.2d 955 (3d Cir. 1984)

. . . Mental Retardation Under section 112.05 to Appendix 1 of Subchapter P, a person under age 18 suffers . . .

POWELL, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 514 F. Supp. 439 (M.D. Fla. 1981)

. . . 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 . . .

CITY OF CLEVELAND, v. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY,, 538 F. Supp. 1257 (N.D. Ohio 1980)

. . . complex disputes.” 16N J. von Kalinowski, Business Organizations: Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation § 112.05 . . .

LYKES BROTHERS, INC. v. CITY OF PLANT CITY, 354 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1978)

. . . personal property were assessed at $5,889,006, giving rise to a total municipal tax liability of $47,-112.05 . . .

In YORK INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, INC. YORK INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, INC. Dr. v. M. CHANEY, YORK INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, INC. Dr. v. M. CHANEY,, 527 F.2d 1061 (9th Cir. 1975)

. . . 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 . . .

BROWN v. STATE, 184 So. 2d 691 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

. . . In an open drawer to the left of Brown was found another cigar box containing $112.05 and numerous slips . . .

BRONSTEIN v. PENNSYLVANIA R. R., 33 F. Supp. 716 (E.D. Pa. 1940)

. . . He therefore claims damages of $112.05. . . .

HART- PARR CO. v. BARTH MFG. CO., 249 F. 629 (8th Cir. 1918)

. . . It also set forth a counterclaim for $112.05 expended by it to make the crank case and core box conform . . .

COMMISSIONERS OF SANTA F COUNTY v. TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO EX REL. COLER SAME v. SAME, 215 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1909)

. . . was concluded that- twenty mills Would produce, if collected in full, $32,996.00, an excess only of $112.05 . . .