42 U.S.C. § 205
Appointment and tenure of office of Surgeon General; reversion in rank
The Surgeon General shall be appointed from the Regular Corps for a four-year term by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Surgeon General shall be appointed from individuals who (1) are members of the Regular Corps, and (2) have specialized training or significant experience in public health programs. Upon the expiration of such term the Surgeon General, unless reappointed, shall revert to the grade and number in the Regular Corps or Ready Reserve Corps that he would have occupied had he not served as Surgeon General.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: Bordelon v. Barnhart, 161 F. App'x 348 (5th Cir. 2005).
Bordelon v. Barnhart, 161 F. App'x 348 (5th Cir. 2005). “Next, Bordelon argues that the district court’s judgement fails to comport with the separate document requirement set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and with the remand requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g). Finally, Bordelon contends that the district court abused…”
United States v. Clifton, 35 M.J. 79 (1992). “(Most opinions dealing with claims for benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g), will clearly fall within the exception.”
Curtis H. Smith, Agu-Fj-Nqfa v. Richard S. Schweiker, 646 F.2d 1075 (5th Cir. 1981). “The only real issue before this Court is whether substantial evidence reading the record as a whole supports the Secretary’s final decision terminating Smith’s disability as of November 1977.”
Johnson SCOTT v. Margaret M. HECKLER, 768 F.2d 172 (7th Cir. 1985). “See 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g). We must therefore determine as a threshold matter whether the Secretary’s decision to conduct own motion review based on the condition that the AU award was not supported by substantial evidence was correct.”
Thomas O. Hayes v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, 311 F.2d 648 (5th Cir. 1963). “Claimant then sought relief from the District Court, 42 U.S.C.A. § 205 (g). That Court affirmed the agency findings with the determination that these findings were supported by substantial evidence.”
Berrios-Velez v. Barnhart, 402 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.P.R. 2005). “Plaintiff Miguel Berrios-Vélez (“Berr-ios”) filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“the Commissioner”) decision to deny him disability benefits, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g) and 405(g). (Docket No.”
Perkins v. Colvin, 224 F. Supp. 3d 575 (E.D. Ky. 2016). “]” 42 U.S.C. § 205 (u)(1)(B), is akin to the authority to exclude a “wife’s affidavit” from evidence in support of a rebuttable presumption of total disability by pneumoconiosis with respect to a living miner’s claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act under 30 U.”
White v. Barnhart, 373 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (N.D. Ala. 2005). “Therefore, the action will be remanded under both sentences four and six of 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g). On remand the Commissioner shall consider the new evidence submitted by the plaintiff.”
Atkins v. Califano, 446 F. Supp. 1017 (N.D. Ill. 1978). “After review of the record under the narrow scope provided in 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g) which allows us only to determine whether the final decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial evidence, based on the record as a whole, Moon v.”
Hays v. Finch, 306 F. Supp. 115 (W.D. Pa. 1969). “42 U.S.C. § 205 (g). Furthermore, the evidence presented is not probative of any disability under the Social Security Act.”
Towenson ex rel. Mickeal v. Apfel, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (D. Kan. 1998). “The ALJ’s decision is the final decision of the Commissioner and is subject to judicial *1331 review as provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g). 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (e)(3).”
Palomo v. Barnhart, 154 F. App'x 426 (5th Cir. 2005). “Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 205 , Palomo sought review of the Commissioner’s decision in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.”
42 U.S.C. § 205(g): 5 cases
Wry v. Saul, No. 3:20-cv-00948 (D. Conn. Sept. 17, 2021).
Waldrep v. Saul, No. 4:20-cv-03457 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2021).
Carpenter v. Commisioner of Soc. Sec., No. 4:21-cv-01111 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2022).
Pawson, Jr. v. Comm'r Of Soc. Sec., No. 4:21-cv-02658 (S.D. Tex. July 20, 2022).
Williams v. Kijakazi, No. 4:21-cv-02492 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.