Cases from cite.case.law:

WILL, O B O C. M. K. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 366 F. Supp. 3d 419 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listing 112.11, for ADHD. (Id. ). . . .

THOMAS, o b o M. H. v. W. COLVIN,, 213 F. Supp. 3d 806 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)

. . . Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ADHD, Listing 112.11, is manifested by developmentally inappropriate . . .

RISLEY, o b o A. D. R. a v. W. COLVIN,, 210 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (E.D. Okla. 2016)

. . . proper credibility determination, (ii) properly determine whether AD.R.’s ADHD met or equaled Listing 112.11 . . .

A. B. ON BEHALF OF Y. F. a v. W. COLVIN,, 166 F. Supp. 3d 512 (D.N.J. 2016)

. . . three, the ALJ concluded that Y.F.’s ADHD does not meet or medically equal the requirements of Listing 112.11 . . . evidence of marked inattention, marked impulsiveness and marked hyperactivity,” pursuant to Listing 112.11 . . .

VEGA, K. I. V. v. W. COLVIN,, 128 F. Supp. 3d 1121 (N.D. Iowa 2015)

. . . The Commissioner argues that the ALJ correctly considered Listings 112.06 and 112.11 and was not required . . . Analysis The ALJ stated that she considered all applicable listed impairments, including 112.06 and 112.11 . . . Unfortunately, it is clear that the ALJ considered the adult criteria for Listings 112.06 and 112.11, . . . This case must be remanded with directions that the ALJ consider Listings 112.06 and 112.11 in light . . . On remand, the ALJ must evaluate Listings 112.06 and 112.11 in light of the appropriate “child” criteria . . .

M. HAIRSTON, o b o S. N. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 52 F. Supp. 3d 657 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . considered Listings 112.04 pertaining to mood disorders, 112.06 pertaining to anxiety disorders, and 112.11 . . . medically equaled an impairment listed in Appendix 1, the ALJ considered Listings 112.04, 112.06, and 112.11 . . . by developmentally inappropriate degrees of inattention, impulsiveness, and hyperactivity” (Section 112.11 . . . Id. §§ 112.04(B), 112.06(B), 112.11(B). . . .

SMITH, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 564 F. App'x 758 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . P, app. 1, § 112.11. . . . P, app. 1, § 112.11; 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(g)-(i). . . .

SIMPSON, v. W. COLVIN,, 2 F. Supp. 3d 81 (D. Mass. 2014)

. . . discussion with respect to the "A”-criteria as he agreed that the "A" criteria set forth in Listing 112.11 . . .

VERGARA, v. W. COLVIN,, 535 F. App'x 687 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . The AO considered listings sections 112.11 (ADHD), 102.00 (Hearing Loss), and 112.00 (Learning Disorder . . .

J. SMITH, J. H. v. W. COLVIN,, 935 F. Supp. 2d 496 (N.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . hearing officer compared J.H.’s severe impairments with the requirements set out in sections 112.04 and 112.11 . . .

ELLINGTON, C. K. S. v. J. ASTRUE,, 927 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (M.D. Ala. 2013)

. . . The required level of severity for Listing 112.11, Attention Hyperactivity Disorder, is met when there . . . App. 1, Listing 112.11. . . .

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

. . . argues T.H. met, medically eq-ualled, or functionally equalled the requirements for either Listing 112.11 . . .

T. C. Z. C. a v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 497 F. App'x 158 (3d Cir. 2012)

. . . The ALJ specifically considered whether Z.C.’s ADHD met Listing 112.11 for ADHD and found that it did . . . The ALJ examined whether Z.C. met the listing severity for ADHD, Listing 112.11, which provides Attention . . . P, App. 1, Listing 112.11. The ALJ found that Z.C. did not meet Listing 112.11. . . . adequate explanation of the factors the ALJ used to determine whether Z.C.’s ADHD did not meet Listing 112.11 . . .

M. G. a v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 861 F. Supp. 2d 846 (E.D. Mich. 2012)

. . . s determination, that the severity of Plaintiff’s ADHD does not satisfy the requirements in Listing 112.11 . . .

FONTENELLE, M. S. a v. J. ASTRUE,, 849 F. Supp. 2d 784 (N.D. Ill. 2012)

. . . the ALJ neglected to consider evidence in light of the medical requirements of listings 103.02(C)(1), 112.11 . . . Pursuant to listing 112.11, a child’s impairment equals the listing for attention deficit hyperactivity . . .

RICE, T. C. K. v. J. ASTRUE,, 32 F. Supp. 3d 113 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Plaintiff contends that Claimant’s ADHD and ODD satisfy the requirements of § 112.11 of the Listings. . . . To meet the impairment set forth in § 112.11, the record must contain: (A) medically documented findings . . . P, App. 1, at Listing 112.11; see also Brown v. . . . impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the impairment set forth in § 112.11 . . .

PRO- STEEL BUILDINGS, INC. v. UNITED STATES B. M. C., 810 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (N.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . Because it makes no difference, I do not address the claim for copying and postage costs of $112.11. . . .

BAUER, v. J. ASTRUE,, 730 F. Supp. 2d 884 (N.D. Ill. 2010)

. . . ALJ concluded that Sean did not meet or medically equal the listings enumerated in App’x 1, Listing 112.11 . . . into account the treating physician’s opinion as appropriate and considering both Listings 112.10 and 112.11 . . . (b) social functioning (c) personal functioning and (d) maintaining concentration (App'x 1, Listing 112.11 . . .

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

. . . . § 404 Subpart P App. 1 § 112.11. . . . . § 404 Subpart P App. 1 § 112.11(B); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404 Sub-part P App. 1 § 112.02(B)(2) (discussing . . .

HOPGOOD, LG, a v. J. ASTRUE,, 578 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2009)

. . . P, App. 1, § 112.11. . . .

HEINTZELMAN, DH, a v. J. ASTRUE,, 622 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (D. Kan. 2008)

. . . For purposes of child mental disorders (112.00), paragraph B(2) of these listings (112.02-112.11, which . . .

WASHINGTON, a STEWART, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 481 F. Supp. 2d 905 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . P, App. 1, §§ 112.04, 112.11. . . . P, App. 1, §§ 112.04, 112.11. . . . This Court notes that Listing 112.04 and 112.11 provide a list of factors that a claimant must prove . . . Specifically, 112.04 and 112.11 are divided into two categories A and B. . . . Under listing 112.11, the factors are: marked inattention; marked impulsiveness; and marked hyperactivity . . .

WHITE, o b o JOHNSON, v. B. BARNHART,, 409 F. Supp. 2d 205 (W.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . not address whether his impairments meet the requirements of Listings 112.05D (mental retardation) or 112.11 . . .

RICHARDSON, D. III, a v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 136 F. App'x 463 (3d Cir. 2005)

. . . P, app. 1 § 112.11 (listing the required criteria for ADHD). . . .

S. R. R. R. A v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 371 F. Supp. 2d 796 (W.D. Va. 2005)

. . . Listing of Impairments § 112.10, “autistic disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders,” or § 112.11 . . . To meet listed impairment § 112.11, the ADHD listing, a claimant must show: (1) a marked limitation in . . . Id. at § 112.11. . . . Accordingly, I conclude the ALJ’s determination that R.R.’s impairments do not “meet” § 112.10 and § 112.11 . . . “equals” the "A” criteria of listing 112.11. S.R. recalls Dr. . . .

BROWN c o Jr. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 430 F. Supp. 2d 102 (W.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . What constitutes ADHD is set forth in the Commissioner’s Listing of Impairments at Listing 112.11. . . . P, App. 1, at Listing 112.11. . . . substantial evidence in the record that Kirk’s impairments do not meet the requirements of Listing 112.11 . . . This evidence demonstrates that Kirk’s ADHD does not meet the requirements of Listing 112.11 because . . . related to [his ADHD] that are at least of equal medical significance” to the requirements of Listing 112.11 . . .

WATKINS o b o v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 131 F. App'x 362 (3d Cir. 2005)

. . . P, app. 1, part B § 112.11. . . . The ALJ found that the record did not document the level of severity required by § 112.11(B), and specifically . . . concentration limitations were “less than marked” and did not meet or medically equal the criteria of Listing § 112.11 . . .

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 . . . The eport and recommendation contained a detailed analysis of § 112.11. . . . Therefore, the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to meet the listings of § 112.11, was supported . . . that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or equal Listing 112.05 for mental retardation, or Listing 112.11 . . . Listing § 112.11 is manifested by developmental^ inappropriate degrees of inattention, impulsiveness . . .

TAYLOR o b o McKINNIES v. Jo B. BARNHART, 333 F. Supp. 2d 846 (E.D. Mo. 2004)

. . . or functionally equaled Listing 112.11. . . . To meet ADHD Listing 112.11, there must be medically documented instances of marked inattention, impulsiveness . . . Appendix 1, Subpart P, Listings Nos. 112.11, 112.02(B2) (20 C.F.R. part 404) (2002). . . . ADHD Listing 112.11 The ALJ determined the record did not reflect medically documented findings of marked . . . For the reasons set forth above, it appears that Terrance meets the ADHD Listing 112.11. . . .

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

. . . impairments: (1) Listing 112.04/mood disorders;- (2) Listing 112.05/mental retardation; or (3) Listing 112.11 . . . On appeal, the plaintiff did not contest the ALJ’s findings regarding listings 112.05 and 112.11, see . . .

RICHARDSON o b o C. R. a v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 338 F. Supp. 2d 749 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . limitations in at least two domains and, thus, functionally equals the disability requirements Listing 112.11 . . . Listing 112.11 Richardson argues that C.R. functionally equals Listing 112.11. . . . reaching his determination that C.R/s combination of impairments did not functionally equal Listing 112.11 . . . the ALJ properly determined that C.R. did not have an impairment that functionally equaled Listing 112.11 . . . Listing 112.11 pertains to ADHD. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 112.02(B)(2)(a)-(d). . . .

JEFFERSON o b o R. J. a v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 356 F. Supp. 2d 663 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that R.J. does not meet Listing 112.11 . . . in her third point of error, Jefferson maintains that R.J.’s limitations functionally equal Listing 112.11 . . . argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that R.J. does not meet Listing 112.11 . . . Listing 112.11 provides, in pertinent part: 112.11 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Manifested . . . P, App. 1, § 112.11. . . .

A. RAGAN, J. a v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 89 F. App'x 160 (10th Cir. 2004)

. . . Childhood Disability Evaluation Form in which he opined that Billy’s condition functionally equaled Listing 112.11 . . . P, App. 1, § 112.11. The ALJ rejected Dr. . . .

SYKES, v. Jo B. BARNHART, c F. R. A. P. HALL o b o a F. R. A. P., 84 F. App'x 210 (3d Cir. 2003)

. . . The ALJ then identified listed impairments he considered, one of which was listing 112.11, pertaining . . . insufficient because the ALJ did not give any reason why Sykes’s ADHD did not meet or medically equal listing 112.11 . . . A closer look, however, at listing 112.11, reveals that, to meet or medically equal the listed impairment . . . Specifically, listing 112.11 requires the child to show marked functional limitations in two of the areas . . . This provision states in pertinent part: 112.11 Attention Deficit Hyper Activity Disorder: Manifested . . .

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

. . . counsel at the hearing on July 21, 1997, was whether Antonio’s impairments functionally equaled listing 112.11 . . . ATTY:112.11, Judge, the Attention Deficit Disorder, Hyperactivity Disorder. ALJ: Okay. . . . I’m not 100 percent sure he has all the different features that ... 112.11 requires for the part A, but . . . And specifically you’re talking about listing 112.11? A. . . . Would they be functionally equivalent to any listing, not only 112.11, but any other listing? A. . . .

E. HENSLEY, a v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 67 F. App'x 330 (6th Cir. 2003)

. . . The issue before the court is whether Tiffany satisfies § 112.04 and § 112.11 of Appendix 1. . . . In examining the requirements of § 112.04 and § 112.11, the evidence does not indicate marked limitations . . .

BRINDISI, BRINDISI, a v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 315 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2003)

. . . applied for benefits under three listings: 102.08 (hearing impairments), 112.06 (anxiety disorders), and 112.11 . . . Robert did not qualify as disabled because he did not meet listing requirements 102.08, 112.06, or 112.11 . . . Listing 112.11 compels findings of marked inattention, marked impulsiveness, and marked hyperactivity . . . P, App. 1, § 112.11. . . .

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

. . . (ii) Listings 112.02, 112.0k and 112.11 We next consider the ALJ’s determination that Sheriff failed . . . Listings 112.02 (pertaining to organic mental disorders), 112.04 (pertaining to mood disorders), and 112.11 . . . (See Appendix 1, §§ 112.02, 112.04, 112.11 (2001).) . . . instant case, the ALJ found that Sheriff satisfied the “A” criteria for Listings 112.02, 112.04, and 112.11 . . . two areas of marked limitation in order to satisfy the “B” criteria of Listings 112.02, 112.04, or 112.11 . . .

MANCUSO, o b o M. MANCUSO, a v. B. BARNHART, F. R. A. P. c, 53 F. App'x 223 (3d Cir. 2002)

. . . relevant areas of functioning, he has the functional equivalent of a listed impairment from Listing § 112.11 . . .

LEISTIKOW, v. B. BARNHART,, 44 F. App'x 43 (8th Cir. 2002)

. . . Carla first argues that Carl met the requirements for Listing 112.11 (attention deficit hyperactivity . . . B § 112.11 (2000). . . .

FONTANEZ, FONTANEZ, v. BARNHART,, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (M.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . children are arranged in eleven diagnostic categories, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (112.11 . . . P.App. 1, § 112.11, requires: A. Medically documented findings of all three of the following: 1. . . . P.App.l, § 112.11. . . .

BORGENS o b o, BORGENS, v. A. HALTER,, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (M.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . children are arranged in 11 diagnostic categories, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (112.11 . . . PApp. 1, § 112.11 (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). . . . P, App.l, § 112.11. . . .

D. DAVENPORT, v. APFEL,, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (D. Kan. 2001)

. . . P, app. 1, § 112.11. To meet or equal § 112.11, claimant must satisfy both parts A and B. . . . contains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that Robert’s limitations in part B of § 112.11 . . .

ROELANDT o b o J. ROELANDT, v. S. APFEL,, 125 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (S.D. Iowa 2001)

. . . to a determination of whether Plaintiffs ADHD meets, medically equals or functionally equals listing 112.11 . . .

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

. . . P, App 1, Listing 112.11. . . .

HELMS L. DANIELS, v. S. APFEL,, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (S.D. Iowa 1998)

. . . P.App. 1, § 112.11 (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). The regulation requires: A. . . . P.App. 1, § 112.11. . . . P.App. 1, § 112.11, as well as the age-group criteria discussed in paragraph B. 20 C.F.R. . . . P.App. 1, § 112.11. . . . P.App. 1, § 112.11, the Court cannot find that the ALJ erred. . . .

CELKIS MIXAN, v. S. APFEL,, 987 F. Supp. 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)

. . . The criteria for this listing is as follows: 112.11. . . . P, App. 1, § 112.11 (1995). The appropriate age-group criteria for Cory are: B.2. . . . The Court concludes that the ALJ found that Cory did not meet Part A of Listing 112.11. . . . the ALJ failed to fully develop the record before deciding that Cory did not meet Part A of Listing 112.11 . . . support the ALJ’s finding that Cory’s impairments did not meet Part A and thus did not meet Listing 112.11 . . .

CAMPBELL, o b o R. CAMPBELL, v. S. CHATER,, 923 F. Supp. 1184 (E.D. Mo. 1996)

. . . P, App. 1 at § 112.11. . . . Plaintiff has failed to show that Kasey meets all of the criteria as set out by §§ 112.11 and 112.02B2 . . .

MORGAN, MORGAN, v. S. CHATER,, 913 F. Supp. 184 (W.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . impairment does not meet or equal the criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder set forth in § 112.11 . . . provide “medically documented” findings of marked inattention, impulsiveness and hyperactivity. (§ 112.11 . . .

STINSON, STINSON, v. E. SHALALA,, 859 F. Supp. 539 (M.D. Ala. 1994)

. . . The ALJ analyzed Marquita’s impairments under § 112.11 of the Listings relating to Hyperactivity Disorder . . .

KALIK t d b a v. ALLIS- CHALMERS CORPORATION, LTV v. P. GREEN, P. J., 658 F. Supp. 631 (W.D. Pa. 1987)

. . . ¶ 2.11); and Wagner Electric Company, the third manufacturer defendant, is a citizen of New Jersey (112.11 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ZAGER, 338 F. Supp. 984 (E.D. Wis. 1972)

. . . meander line made of Lake Julia in the Government’s original survey of 1859 was erroneous, and that 112.11 . . . of 22.96 acres, Lot 7 of 3.69 acres, Lot 8 of 4.09 acres, and Lot 9 of 51.60 acres, for a total of 112.11 . . . The total acreage of Lots 1 through 9 then is 319.16 acres, 112.11 of which were omitted from the 1859 . . . That survey, as has been noted, discovered that due to erroneous meandering in 1859, 112.11 acres of . . . The Government, then, in the instant case is on tenuous ground, for the omitted land amounts to only 112.11 . . .

UNITED STATES v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DIST., 110 F. Supp. 767 (S.D. Cal. 1953)

. . . The United States of America likewise acquired fee simple title to a tract of land of 112.11 acres in . . .

B. v., 30 Cust. Ct. 522 (Cust. Ct. 1953)

. . . The steel bars or rounds were entered as follows: %" and %" at $110.70 per 1,000 kilos, %" at $112.11 . . .

UNITED STATES v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DIST., 109 F. Supp. 28 (S.D. Cal. 1952)

. . . A small parcel consisting of 112.11 acres located in Orange County was acquired by deed dated February . . . copies of certain documents involved in the, acquisition of the 1,676.58 acres of land more or less; 112.11 . . . copies of certain documents involved in the acquisition of the 1,676.58 acres of land more or less; 112.11 . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)