The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . . § 718.202(a)(1) (emphasis added). . . . Steel puts it, the ALJ's " 'later is better' analysis is not allowed under 20 C.F.R. § 718.202." . . . The text of § 718.202 says nothing of the sort, so U.S. . . .
. . . Although a medical opinion need not rely on chest x-ray evidence, see 20 C.F.R. 718.202(a)(4), an ALJ . . . Compare 20 C.F.R. § 718.304(a), with 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(1). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4). . . . Section 718.202(a)(4) is a federal regulation that sets out one of the ways in which a fact-finder may . . . Such a finding must be supported by a reasoned medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4). . . . Habre’s, in determining the existence of legal pneumoconiosis pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4). . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a0(4) The ALJ also had a substantial basis for according little weight to the opinions of . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(1), (4) (2016). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a). . . . J.A. 13 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.102, 718.202). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a). . . . . § 718.202(b). . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(b). . . . Forehand’s diagnosis was acceptable in the absence of a positive x-ray, 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(b), and that . . . See id. at 181 (Fino Dep. at 18:16-18); 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(b). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4) (“notwithstanding a negative X-ray,” a physician may find, based on sound medical judgment . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(1)-(4) — x-rays, biopsy, medical opinions, and CT scans — together. Id. at 881. . . . remanded the case for the ALJ to weigh together all of the relevant evidence referenced in 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(1), Thus, he found the September 10, 1990 x-ray evidence to be in equipoise . . . different issue to the Board, arguing that “by essentially reiterating his findings at -20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4). . The ALJ's reference to Dr. . . .
. . . for a coal miner’s claim, including that the miner must have “pneumoconiosis” as .it is defined in § 718.202 . . . Section 718.202 identifies several ways a miner can establish pneumoconiosis, including by use of the . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(3) (requiring the decisionmaker to presume that the coal miner has pneumoconiosis . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(1)-(4). . . . examination, and medical and work histories,” if “supported by a reasoned medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202(a)(1), 718.304(a). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(1). . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-04. . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-205. . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-718.205 (articulating the eligibility requirements to receive black lung benefits). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4) (noting that the “determination of the existence of pneumoconiosis may also be made . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a). . . . . § 718.202(a)(1), and the second is through biopsy or autopsy evidence, id. § 718.202(a)(2). . . . Id. § 718.202(a)(3). . . . Id. § 718.202(a)(4). . . . Evaluating each category of § 718.202(a) evidence, he concluded that x-ray evidence under § 718.202(a . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-04). . . . biopsy evidence, or reasoned medical opinions, or by invoking an applicable presumption. 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4).” . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-718.204 Mr. . . . alone not enough to satisfy the regulatory definition of clinical pneumoco-niosis under 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.202 . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-204, 725.202. . . .
. . . . § 718.202(b); see also 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4) (noting “determination of the existence of pneumoconiosis . . . that pneumoconiosis may be diagnosed “notwithstanding a negative X-ray” as set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . Section 718.202, Florida Statutes (2006), sets forth the pertinent provisions of the Condominium Act . . . In brief, section 718.202(1) requires the payment “into an escrow account” of “all-payments up to 10 . . . percent of the sale price,” and section 718.202(2) provides that payments “which are in excess of the . . . The statutory history of section 718.202 is extensive and complex. . . . See §§ 718.202(2), (8), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1984). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(3) requires. . . . as a result of Kolter’s omission of the disclosure, which the court concluded was required under § 718.202 . . . Florida courts have held that Condominium Act provisions similar to § 718.202(3) require plaintiffs to . . . The district court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under § 718.202 . . . Stat. § 718.202(3). . . . .
. . . . § 718.202 (“Determining the existence of pneumoconiosis”). . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(b)(2)(i). . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(b)(2)(iv). . . . judgment, based on objective medical evidence and supported by a reasoned medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4). The administrative law judge reasonably found Dr. . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(ii)(C), (E). . . . consider “the radiological qualifications of the physicians interpreting such X-rays.” 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . (d) lists the elements of a claim, including that the claimant has pneumoco-niosis, as set out in § 718.202 . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(3) (“If the presumption[ ] described in § ... 718.305 ... . . .
. . . . § 718.202(1). . . . Id. § 718.202(2)-(3). These funds must be held in a special escrow account. Id. . . . Id. § 718.202(5). . . . Stat. § 718.202(5). . . . Stat. § 718.202(5) (emphasis added). . . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a). . . . Fino’s opinion was inconsistent with 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4), which, in the ALJ’s words, “explicitly . . . Kaplan, contrary to § 718.202(a)(4), would not diagnose emphysema from coal dust exposure without a positive . . . notwithstanding a negative X-ray, finds that the miner suffers or suffered from pneumoconiosis....” 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202. . . . less weight” to the opinions of an employer’s expert because it was “inconsistent with 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(l)(ii)(E); see also Woodward v. . . .
. . . The Palms at Perdido (“The Palms”) on their claims for breach of contract and violations of section 718.202 . . . The Jacksons assert that The Palms violated section 718.202, Florida Statutes, which governs the use . . . Miller, 450 So.2d 875, 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (“The obvious purpose of section 718.202 is to protect . . . We note that section 718.202 does not make clear how courts are to handle situations where a seller commits . . . BCRE Brickell, LLC, 79 So.3d 91, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (reversing entry of summary judgment on section 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a). . . . Claimant may establish the existence of pneumoconiosis under any one of the alternate methods” in § 718.202 . . . Although § 718.202(a) lists four alternatives, each of which may be sufficient to support a diagnosis . . . According to the Director, “although section 718.202(a) enumerates four distinct methods of establishing . . . relevant evidence is to be considered together rather than merely within discrete subsections of § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4) (“A determination of the existence of pneumoconiosis may also be made if a physician . . . Id. § 718.202(b). . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-205. . . . evidence that the miner suffers from pneumoconiosis, even if the x-rays are inconclusive. 20 C.F.R. 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202. Mona Lisa relied on Fla. . . . Stat. § 718.202. . . . Stat. § 718.202(3). . Fla. Stat. § 718.202(3). . CRC 603, LLC v. . . . . § 718.202(5). . § 718.202(5) (emphasis added). . Fla. . . . Stat. § 718.202. . . .
. . . . § 718.202(b) (“No claim for benefits shall be denied solely on the basis of a negative chest X-ray. . . . that “[n]o claim for benefits shall be denied solely on the basis of a negative chest X-ray,” id. § 718.202 . . . less weight” to the opinions of an employer’s expert because it was “inconsistent with 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-204; Energy W. Mining Co. v. Oliver, 555 F.3d 1211, 1214 (10th Cir.2009). . . . or suffered from a chronic dust disease of the lung which: (a) When diagnosed by chest X-ray (see § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4). The ALJ found Majmudar’s report and findings well-documented and well-reasoned. . . . has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffers from pneumoconiosis under [20 C.F.R.] § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4); Cornett v. . . . 569, 576 (6th Cir.2000) (agreeing that “mere restatement” of a positive x-ray is insufficient under § 718.202 . . .
. . . We reverse because there are issues of fact that affect whether BCRE adhered to section 718.202, Florida . . . Daneri argued in count III that the contract should be voided because BCRE violated section 718.202. . . . Resolution of this case requires the Court to interpret section 718.202, which imposes requirements upon . . . See § 718.202(1). . . . Thus, BCRE may have violated section 718.202 because the funds held in escrow were withheld in violation . . .
. . . The Florida legislature, however, added subsection 11 to F.S. § 718.202 in 2010. . . . occurred before the enactment of F.S. § 718.202(11). . . . or the new amendment to F.S. § 718.202. . . . (1) and ‘in excess of the ten percent’ buyer deposits under section 718.202(2).” . . . The plain language of F.S. § 718.202(5) does not require any showing of prejudice. . . .
. . . appeals is not whether a condominium developer and its escrow agent violated the requirements of section 718.202 . . . That count merely alleges that the developer and the escrow agent violated section 718.202, Florida Statutes . . . [Appellants] argue that the requirements of § 718.202 are met by a “separate accounting” of the funds . . . However, even if a separate accounting of the escrowed deposits satisfies the requirements of § 718.202 . . . escrow account or two,[FN2] the district court did not err in finding the contract voidable under § 718.202 . . . escrow agent (appellee First American Title Insurance Company) violated the requirements of section 718.202 . . . In May 2006, section 718.202(2) required, in pertinent part: All payments which are in excess of the . . . Subsection (3) of section 718.202 allows a developer to withdraw “escrow funds in excess of 10 percent . . . (1) and the amounts deposited or withdrawn under section 718.202(2) and (3). . . . Section 718.202 has been amended since then, as detailed below. . § 718.202(5), Fla. . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(1). . . . . § 718.202(a)(4), and found that Drs. . . . The ALJ also addressed the issue of disability under 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(b)(2), and concluded that Morrison . . . See 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.202-204 (2000); Adams v. Director, OWCP, 886 F.2d 818, 820 (6th Cir.1989). . . . . § 718.202. . . .
. . . .] § 718.202(a)(4)” and remanded for further consideration of the opinions offered by these two doctors . . . pneumoconiosis by the preponderance of the reasoned medical opinion evidence, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-718.204. Mrs. Keene argues that the ALJ ignored evidence regarding the last element. . . .
. . . it supports [] findingfs] of the existence of pneumoconiosis [and total disability] under Sectionfs] 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(l)-(4), discrediting Dr. . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4). . . . Renn’s statement was inconsistent with 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(l)-(4) and with the preamble to the regulations . . . Moreover, the ALJ reasonably concluded that this position is at odds with 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4) ( . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4) (“A determination of the existence of pneumoconiosis may also be made if a physician . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(1) (“A chest X-ray conducted and classified in accordance with § 718.102 may . . . Significantly, the Board did not differentiate between § 718.202(a)(1), which allows for a finding of . . . the existence of pneumoconiosis based on positive xray reports, and § 718.202(a)(4), which allows for . . . (a)(1)) and the testimony (which he concluded established legal pneumoconiosis under § 718.202(a)(4)) . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(1) (“A chest X-ray conducted and classified in accordance with § 718.102 may form the . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4) (“A determination of the existence of pneumoconiosis may also be made if . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4). . . .
. . . . § 718.202. . . . Swire and Lawyers Title argue that the district court erred in concluding that § 718.202 requires the . . . They argue that the requirements of § 718.202 are met by a “separate accounting” of the funds placed . . . Stat. § 718.202(1) (“the developer shall pay into an escrow account”); § 718.202(6) (“[t]he developer . . . See § 718.202(5). . . .
. . . . § 718.202. . . . Chap. 517); • Count IV: Florida Condominium Act (Fla.Stat. § 718.202); • Count V: Florida Condominium . . . Plaintiffs also have alleged predicate violations under Fla.Stat. §§ 718.202 and 190.048. . . . First, a violation of Fla.Stat. § 718.202 does not constitute a violation of FDUT-PA. . . . Fla.Stat. § 718.202(1). . Prospectus, Ex. 4, Doc. No. 48; Doc. No. 125, Ex. 1. . . . .
. . . escrow agreement also specified that Coastal would be serving as escrow agent in accordance with section 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4). In this case, Mr. . . .
. . . . § 718.202 The Original Purchasers are correct that the return of the deposits is based on Florida law . . . .. entitling the person to a refund of any deposit together with interest thereon as provided in s. 718.202 . . . Stat. § 718.202(2) (2005) states that the Special Deposits “may not be used by the developer ... except . . . Stat. § 718.202 does not mandate their return. . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-204, 725.202. . . . See 30 U.S.C. §§ 901, 921; 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.202-204, 725.202. . . . did state that the 2005 biopsy established that Cox suffered from pneumoconiosis under 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . . The ALJ made it clear in her opinion that she was basing her award of benefits not on 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . . the presumption of 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(3), a claimant establishing pneumoconiosis under 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . Pneumoconiosis Section 718.202 provides that the existence of pneumoconiosis can be established by x-ray . . . Therefore, the Claimant has not established the presence of pneumoconiosis pursuant to § 718.202(a)(2 . . . Therefore, the Claimant has not established the presence of pneumoconiosis pursuant to § 718.202(a)(3 . . . Medica/deports Under § 718.202(a)(4), a determination of pneumoconiosis may also be made if a physician . . . Sgg 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)( 11(2002). This is the only information that can be determined ftom Dr. . . . . § 718.202(b). . . . Claimant has not established the presence of either clinical or legal pneumoconiosis, the criteria of § 718.202 . . . It therefore does not meet the standards for x-rays set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.202(a)(1); 718.102 . . . (a) and (2) in any event, the letter did not meet the standards for x-rays set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . . Such a finding shall be supported by a reasoned medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4). . . . .
. . . Count IV alleges two violations of Florida Statutes § 718.202. . . . Stat. § 718.202; it is not a claim premised on a violation of § 1703(a)(1)(C) of the ILSF-DA. . . . Stat. § 718.202. iv. . . . Accordingly, claims premised on Florida Statutes § 718.202 are hereby dismissed, with leave to amend. . . . Stat. § 718.202. 5. . . .
. . . Stat. § 718.202(l)-(2); (b) Plaintiffs properly voided the Purchase Agreement under § 718.202(5); and . . . state that Swire “shall” comply with section 718.202. . . . Stat. § 718.202(5). B. . . . violation of Florida Statute Section 718.202. . . . Because Swire did in fact violate section 718.202, that argument fails. . . .
. . . /Counterclaimants can lawfully rescind based on the Debtor’s alleged violations of § 489.1425 and § 718.202 . . . Stat. § 718.202(8). . . . Florida Statutes § 718.202(8) Although not the subject of Counterclaimants’ Motion for Summary Judgment . . . Stat. § 718.202(8) is not a statute “which proscribes unfair methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive . . . Finally, even if Counter-claimants could prove that the Escrow Agent was not independent under § 718.202 . . .
. . . entitling the person to a refund of any deposit together with interest thereon as provided in Section 718.202 . . .
. . . Thereafter, in apparent reliance on Florida Statutes § 718.202, the debtor purchased from Westchester . . . Stat. § 718.202. In Count IV, plaintiffs allege Mona Lisa violated Fla. . . . . § 718.202 by withdrawing plaintiffs’ escrow funds prior to completion of the Hotel. . . . Stat. § 718.202(1). . . . Stat. § 718.202 when it withdrew the escrow funds. . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-204 (2000); Adams v. Director, OWCP, 886 F.2d 818, 820 (6th Cir.1989). . . . . § 718.202. Only the fourth method is at issue in this appeal. . . . Together, the completion of these tasks will result in a medical opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a) . . . an examination conducted by or on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services. 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a) — the ALJ found that Mr. . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(1); Zeigler Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. . . . not the reading, but the x-ray, that establishes the presumption [of pneumoconiosis].”); 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(l)(ii)(E). . . .
. . . . §§ 718.1(a), 718.202-204. III. Petitioner argues that the ALJ erred in crediting Dr. . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4); Cornett, 227 F.3d at 575. . . . . § 718.202(a)(4). In crediting Dr. . . .
. . . or suffered from a chronic dust disease of the lung which: (a)When diagnosed by chest X-ray (see § 718.202 . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202(1) & 718.503(Ɩ)(b)(Ɩ). Accordingly, Count VIII is also dismissed with prejudice. IV. . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a) (2006). . . . those B readers who are also board-certified radiologists are entitled to greater weight. 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(b) (2006). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(l)-(4) and thus could not establish an entitlement to benefits pursuant to the Act. . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-204 (2000); Adams v. Director, OWCP, 886 F.2d 818, 820 (6th Cir.1989). . . . an examination conducted by or on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services. 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4). Applying the rebuttable presumption afforded Mr. . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202, 718.203, 718.204. . . . ALJ found that Barrett had established the existence of legal pneumoconio-sis pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . . Such a finding shall be supported by a reasoned medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4). Dr. . . .
. . . . § 718.202, that the disease arose from coal mine employment, 20 C.F.R. § 718.203, and that death was . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a), Mrs. . . . stated analysis for finding pneumo-coniosis — i a, “through physician’s reports as provided in Section 718.202 . . . We noted that the ALJ “did" in fact evaluate the evidence within subsections (a)(1) and (a)(4) of § 718.202 . . . relevant evidence is to be considered together rather than merely within discrete subsections of § 718.202 . . . sufficient to establish pneumo-coniosis under one of the four methods set out at 20 C.F.R. section 718.202 . . . . § 718.202(a)’s four subsections, a miner’s pneumoconiosis may be established in four ways: (1) chest . . . to find the existence of pneumoconiosis by looking exclusively at evidence within one of 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . . establish, by a preponderance of the evidence and through one of the four methods spelled out in § 718.202 . . . the ALJ was permitted to consider whether evidence of pneumoconiosis relating to one of the four § 718.202 . . . working in the coal mines) in the same manner (through one of the four methods prescribed by the § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(b). . . . See § 718.202. . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(1), the weight of the medical opinion evidence established the existence of both clinical . . . and legal pneumoconiosis, see n. 2, infra., pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4). . . . when all of the x-ray evidence taken together did not merit a positive finding pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a). The ALJ determined that Ms. . . . establish that her husband suffered from pneumoconiosis is medical opinion evidence pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4). . . . .2000) (agreeing that restatement of x-ray does not constitute reasoned medical judgment); 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . . gas and pulmonary function studies, physical examination, and medical and work histories. 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(1)(E) (2005). . . . .
. . . . § 718.202. . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(1)(ii)(E). . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(1)(ii)(C). . . .
. . . result of pneumoconiosis if the claimant can prove that: “(1) [t]he miner had pneumoconiosis (see § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202. The new X-ray evidence consisted of three positive and five negative X-ray readings. . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(2) provides in part that “A report of autopsy shall be accepted unless there is evidence . . .
. . . . § 718.202. . . . the ALJ concluded that Ulbin had established the existence of pneumoconiosis by x-ray under section 718.202 . . . Based on that determination, the ALJ concluded that Ulbin, under section 718.202(a)(1), failed to carry . . .
. . . . §§ 725.202(d), 718.202-718.204. . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(4). Based on the testimony of Drs. . . . See 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4). The second reason is that even if Dr. . . .
. . . Section 718.202(a) provides that [a] finding of the existence of pneumoconiosis may be made as follows . . . Such a finding shall be supported by a reasoned medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a) (2004). . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a).” ALJ Order at 3. . . . I find physician opinion evidence at § 718.202(a)(4) a more probative basis to prove the existence of . . . pneumoconiosis then [sic] chest x-ray evidence at § 718.202(a)(1). . . . Department of Health and Human Services. 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(l)(ii)(E); 42 C.F.R. § 37.51. . . . Title 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4) specifically provides that a diagnosis of pneumoconiosis based on "sound . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a) (2003). . . . may establish that he suffers from pneumoconiosis is medical opinion evidence pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.202 . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(l)(ii)(E). . . . Id. § 718.202(a)(l)(ii)(C). . . . Id. § 718.202(a)(1) (emphasis added). . . . We consider only the two methods, chest x-ray evidence, see id. § 718.202(a)(1), and physician opinion . . . evidence, see id. § 718.202(a)(4), used in this case. . . .
. . . . § 718.202(a)(l)-(4)). . . . ALJ satisfied his obligation under 30 U.S.C. § 923(b) to consider all relevant evidence and under § 718.202 . . . See § 718.202(a)(4). . . .
. . . . §§ 718.202-204 (2003). . . . Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a), a claimant can prove the existence of pneumoconiosis through four . . . different categories of evidence; the only two relevant here are x-ray evidence, § 718.202(a)(1), and . . . reasoned medical opinion evidence, § 718.202(a)(4). . . . . See Compton, 211 F.3d at 211 (requiring the ALJ to weigh all of the relevant evidence under § 718.202 . . .