42 U.S.C. § 416
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
“There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, to remain available until expended.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4,457
cases (1,367 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975).
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975). “510 , and as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 416 (c) (5) and (e) (2) (1970 ed.”
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987). “771 , 42 U. S. C. § 416 (i) (1952 ed.). In 1954, Congress replaced those definitions with slightly different ones contained in a new § 216(i).”
Thomas v. Astrue, 674 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “42 U.S.C. § 416 (h)(2)(A)-(3)(C)(2006). A child is deemed to be “dependent” on a wage earner if (1) at the time of death, the wage earner was living with or “contributing to the support of’ such child, 42 U.”
Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976). “" Section 216 (e), 42 U. S. C. § 416 (e), includes, under the definition of child, inter alia, "the child .”
Schafer v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 49 (4th Cir. 2011). “See 42 U.S.C. §§ 416 (h)(2), (h)(3)(C). The district court agreed.”
Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014). “As a result, the ALJ held that Treichler was not disabled under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 416 (i), 423(d). The Appeals Council denied Treichler’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision.”
Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974). “The claims of appellants, Eugenio and Alicia, were denied, however, on the ground that they did not meet the requirements of 42 U. S. C. § 416 (h) (3), since neither child's paternity had been acknowledged or affirmed through evidence of domicile and support before the onset of…”
Mary Davis, Cross-Appellant v. Joseph A. Califano, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, Cross-Appellee, 603 F.2d 618 (7th Cir. 1979). “The term “widow” means the surviving wife of the insured, 42 U.S.C. § 416 (c). There are two methods for qualifying for widow’s insurance benefits.”
Garner Childress, on Behalf of Patrick Childress v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 679 F.2d 623 (6th Cir. 1982). “Patrick Childress, the claimant, maintains that he is a “child” of the wage earner within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 416 (h)(2)(A) 1 or § 416(h)(3)(C)(ii), 2 and, therefore, is entitled to benefits under 42 U.”
Carrie J. Cox, for Michael K. Cox, S.S. Nvk-Tp-Ducg v. Richard S. Schweiker, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 684 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1982). “42 U.S.C.A. § 416 (h)(2)(A) (1974); Ga.Code Ann.”
Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010). “In 2002, he filed an application for Title II disability insurance benefits, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416 (i), 423(d), claiming that he was unable to work on July 3, 1990, due to gunshot wounds, chronic back pain, and post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Jeanette Luke for Scott E. Luke v. Otis R. Bowen, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. of the United States, 868 F.2d 974 (8th Cir. 1989). “Scott Luke was not entitled to benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 416 (h)(2)(A), because under South Dakota Law, S.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(I) — 1 case
Highfield, III v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Fla. 2020).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(e) — 1 case
Boyd v. Folsom, 149 F. Supp. 925 (W.D. Pa. 1957).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(h) — 8 cases
Ann M. Boyd v. Marion B. Folsom, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare of the United States of Am., 257 F.2d 778 (3rd Cir. 1958).
Morris v. Richardson, 346 F. Supp. 494 (N.D. Ga. 1972).
Marek v. Flemming, 192 F. Supp. 528 (S.D. Tex. 1961).
Lucas v. Sec'y, Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 390 F. Supp. 1310 (D.R.I. 1975).
Turley v. Cohen, 325 F. Supp. 1067 (S.D.W. Va 1971).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A) — 2 cases
Mrs. Almena Willet Matthews v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 472 F.2d 1176 (5th Cir. 1973).
Kathy A. Chambers v. Patricia Harris, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 687 F.2d 332 (10th Cir. 1982).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i) — 1 case
Driggs v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2020).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A) — 5 cases
Schafer v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 49 (4th Cir. 2011). “See 42 U.S.C. §§ 416 (h)(2), (h)(3)(C). The district court agreed.”
Kathleen Steele v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 51 F.4th 1059 (11th Cir. 2022).
McBride v. Heckler, 619 F. Supp. 1554 (D.N.J. 1985).
Frances E. Moreno, as Guardian for Ernest R. Moreno, Jr., a Minor v. Elliot L. Richardson, Sec'y of Health, Educ., & Welfare, 484 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1973).
Kathleen Steele v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 94 F.4th 1263 (11th Cir. 2024).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(3)(A) — 1 case
Rhodes ex rel. Rhodes v. Weinberger, 66 F.R.D. 601 (E.D. Pa. 1975).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(3)(C) — 2 cases
Diane King v. Richard S. Schweiker, Sec'y of Health & Human Resources, 647 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1981).
Rhodes v. Weinberger, 388 F. Supp. 437 (E.D. Pa. 1975).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(3)(C)(ii) — 2 cases
Carrie J. Cox, for Michael K. Cox, S.S. Nvk-Tp-Ducg v. Richard S. Schweiker, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 684 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1982). “42 U.S.C.A. § 416 (h)(2)(A) (1974); Ga.Code Ann.”
Smith ex rel. Sisk v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1989).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(i) — 72 cases
Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010).
William A. Hodgson v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 312 F.2d 260 (3rd Cir. 1963).
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare v. Clarence A. O'Brient, 323 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1963).
Leonard H. Garrett v. Elliot L. Richardson, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 471 F.2d 598 (8th Cir. 1972).
Ramon M. Rivas v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 475 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1973).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(1)(A) — 1 case
Jackson v. Colvin, 240 F. Supp. 3d 593 (E.D. Tex. 2017).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(2)(C) — 2 cases
Yu v. Astrue, 963 F. Supp. 2d 201 (E.D.N.Y 2013).
Mary E. SPROW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 865 F.2d 207 (9th Cir. 1989).
— 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(l) — 3 cases
Holguin v. Harris, 480 F. Supp. 1171 (N.D. Cal. 1979).
Cashman v. Shalala, 817 F. Supp. 217 (D. Mass. 1993).
Harris v. Heckler, 580 F. Supp. 1546 (E.D. Wis. 1984).
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.