Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 201.14 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 201.14 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 201.14

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE
Chapter 201
EXCISE TAX ON DOCUMENTS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 201.14
201.14 Cancellation of stamps when used.Whenever an adhesive stamp is used for denoting any tax imposed by this chapter on documents, the person using or affixing the same shall write or stamp or cause to be written or stamped thereon, the initials of his, her, or its name, and the date upon which same is attached or used, so that the same may not again be used. Stamps shall be affixed in such manner that their removal will require continued application of steam or water; provided, that the Department of Revenue may prescribe such other method for the cancellation of such stamps as it may deem expedient.
History.s. 5, ch. 15787, 1931; CGL 1936 Supp. 1279(116); ss. 21, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 1052, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 201.14 on Google Scholar

F.S. 201.14 on Casetext

Amendments to 201.14


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 201.14
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 201.14.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

KOSIROG, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 354 F. Supp. 3d 835 (M.D. Tenn. 2019)

. . . advanced age, the hearing officer found that he became disabled on August 27, 2013, following Rule 201.14 . . .

COURTNEY, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 385 F. Supp. 3d 761 (W.D. Wis. 2018)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14. No doubt 18 days falls within "a few months." . . .

J. KRUPCZYK, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 342 F. Supp. 3d 352 (W.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . P, App. 2, § 201.14; see id. at § 201.00 (g) ("Individuals approaching advanced age (age 50-54) may be . . .

NOTTKE, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., 318 F. Supp. 3d 1036 (N.D. Ohio 2018)

. . . . § 201.14. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). . . .

J. BARNES, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 895 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2018)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App'x 2, Rules 201.14-.15. . . .

J. BIESTEK, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 880 F.3d 778 (6th Cir. 2017)

. . . P, App. 2, § 201.14; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(d) (defining persons “closely approaching advanced . . .

LEDDY, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 702 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . She also argues that the ALJ erred by not applying Rule 201.14 of the Medical Vocational Guidelines. . . .

W. SCHOFIELD, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 697 F. App'x 563 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . treating opinions that Schofield had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work, Rule 201.14 . . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14. . . .

NOTTKE, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., 264 F. Supp. 3d 859 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

. . . . § 201.14. . . . The railroad contends that federal law— specifically, 40 C.F.R. § 201.14—permits it to operate retarders . . .

R. MYLES, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 691 F. App'x 339 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . P, App. 2, Rules 201.14 & 202.14. Therefore, the ALJ properly relied on the testimony of a VE. . . .

WRIGHT, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 687 F. App'x 45 (2d Cir. 2017)

. . . Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14 Because the ALJ’s determination of the Plaintiffs residual functional . . . need not address the Plaintiff’s contention that he would be disabled under Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14 . . .

JACKSON, v. COLVIN,, 240 F. Supp. 3d 593 (E.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . 55), and his attorney briefly stated that under a theory of the case, “medical vocational guidelines 201.14 . . .

M. BISCEGLIA, v. W. COLVIN,, 173 F. Supp. 3d 326 (E.D. Va. 2016)

. . . .-' P, App. 2, Rules 201.12, 201.14. . . .

ALI, v. CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON,, 309 F.R.D. 77 (D.D.C. 2015)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 201.14 (3d ed.2003) (discussing application of final judgment rule . . .

J. PAPESH, v. W. COLVIN,, 786 F.3d 1126 (8th Cir. 2015)

. . . Papesh cites Grid Rule 201.14 of Appendix 2 to Subpart P of Part 404, the Medical-Vocational Guidelines . . . The Commissioner makes no argument that Grid Rule 201.14 does not apply, but the ALJ stated that transferability . . . Although Grid Rule 201.14 appears to control, this issue is left for remand. Cf. Stewart v. . . . 587 (8th Cir.1992) (reversing and remanding for entry of judgment awarding benefits when Grid Rule 201.14 . . .

A. OSBORN, v. W. COLVIN,, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (D. Or. 2015)

. . . Rule 201.14. . . . Id. at Rule 201.10, 201.14. Accordingly, if Dr. . . .

J. GARCIA, v. W. COLVIN,, 83 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (D. Colo. 2015)

. . . skills and the capacity for sedentary work would be considered presumptively disabled under Grid Rule 201.14 . . .

FRANZ, v. W. COLVIN,, 91 F. Supp. 3d 1200 (D. Or. 2015)

. . . . § 404 Appendix 2 to Subpart P, Section 201.14. . . .

PADILLA- GOMEZ, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 88 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.P.R. 2015)

. . . The expert then made reference to the GRID and Rule 201.14, that is, a person who is approaching advanced . . .

CURTIS, v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,, 64 F. Supp. 3d 1198 (N.D. Ill. 2014)

. . . . §§ 404.1563 and 416.963 and that Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14 directed a finding of “disabled” under . . .

TENDER TOUCH REHAB SERVICES, LLC, v. BRIGHTEN AT BRYN MAWR, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, LP, ABC, 26 F. Supp. 3d 376 (E.D. Pa. 2014)

. . . This Court also finds Defendants’ citation to 28 Pa.Code § 201.14(b) to be unpersuasive because it is . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. W. COLVIN,, 567 F. App'x 576 (10th Cir. 2014)

. . . Under Grid Rule 201.14, the ALJ would have been compelled to find Mr. . . .

COBB, v. COLVIN,, 4 F. Supp. 3d 786 (E.D.N.C. 2014)

. . . P, App’x II § 201.14. Further, the ALJ’s credibility determination was flawed. She found that Mr. . . .

R. BRANON, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 539 F. App'x 675 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . Capability Limited to Sedentary Work as a Result of Severe Medically Determinable Impairment(s), Rule 201.14 . . .

THOMAS, v. W. COLVIN,, 534 F. App'x 546 (7th Cir. 2013)

. . . P, App. 2 § 201.14 (providing that claimant between ages of 50 and 54 is disabled if limited to sedentary . . . P, App. 2 § 201.14, which the ALJ appears not to have recognized. . . .

TENHOVE, v. W. COLVIN,, 927 F. Supp. 2d 557 (E.D. Wis. 2013)

. . . fiftieth birthday, she would qualify as disabled under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (Grid Rule 201.14 . . .

LAPICA, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 501 F. App'x 895 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . Grid Rules 201.14 and 201.15 both apply to individuals who are closely approaching advanced age, are . . . Under Grid Rule 201.14, if the claimant’s previous work experience was “skilled or semiskilled” and those . . . Rather, she argues that, even though she had transferable skills, Grid Rule 201.14 should apply because . . . Rule 201.14 cannot apply, however, because, by definition, it only applies when an individual lacks transferable . . .

V. GILES, v. BERT BELL PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN,, 925 F. Supp. 2d 700 (D. Md. 2012)

. . . Giles was disabled, the SSA Determination cited the SSA’s Vocational Rule 201.14. . . . Giles’s counsel explained the basis of the application of Vocational Rule 201.14 by the SSA, noting that . . . Giles (Vocational Rule 201.14), a person is totally disabled if he is over 50 years of age, cannot perform . . . application for Social Security disability benefits, which supports the application of Vocational Rule 201.14 . . .

PARROTT, v. J. ASTRUE,, 493 F. App'x 801 (7th Cir. 2012)

. . . P., App. 2, Rule 201.14.) . . . P., App. 2, Rule 201.14. . . .

PETERSEN, v. J. ASTRUE, r, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . date); rather, the disability designation changed because the applicable Medical-Vocational Rule (Rule 201.14 . . .

PICKETT, v. J. ASTRUE,, 895 F. Supp. 2d 720 (E.D. Va. 2012)

. . . Plaintiff then points to Grid Rule 201.14, 20 CFR Pt. 404, Subpt. . . . Therefore, had she been fifty years of age, as opposed to just shy of it, Grid Rule 201.14 would have . . . Grid Rule 201.14, 20 CFR Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. . . .

GOLINI, v. J. ASTRUE,, 483 F. App'x 806 (4th Cir. 2012)

. . . sedentary work, entitling him to disability benefits pursuant to Medical-Vocational Guidelines Rule 201.14 . . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14 (directing that high school graduate or more who is closely approaching advanced . . .

PONDER, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,, 865 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 201.14 (3d ed.2003)). . . .

GODFREY, v. J. ASTRUE,, 861 F. Supp. 2d 683 (E.D.N.C. 2012)

. . . Godfrey must be found to be disabled under Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14. . . . Godfrey’s age, education and work experience require a disabled finding under Rule 201.14. . . . Godfrey is disabled by application of Rule 201.14, the Court concludes that the Commissioner is obliged . . .

LOPEZ, Jr. v. J. ASTRUE,, 854 F. Supp. 2d 415 (N.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . evaluation of the relevant medical opinions led him to utilize the wrong table under Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14 . . . [Plaintiffs] work limitations fall squarely within the requirements of Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14 . . .

FULLERTON, Jr. v. J. ASTRUE,, 452 F. App'x 697 (8th Cir. 2012)

. . . P, app. 2, table 1, rules 201.10, 201.14; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(d) (DIB), 416.963(d) (SSI) ( . . .

L. LANE, v. J. ASTRUE,, 839 F. Supp. 2d 952 (S.D. Ohio 2012)

. . . , but became disabled on that date— her fiftieth birthday — under a direct application of Grid Rule 201.14 . . . fiftieth birthday, January 14, 2009, under a direct application of Medical-Vocational (“Grid”) Rule 201.14 . . . Grid Rule 201.14 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, found in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. . . .

STACEY, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 451 F. App'x 517 (6th Cir. 2011)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App’x 2, Rule 201.14. . . . Part 404, Subpart P, App’x 2, Rule 201.14. A remand is in order. One other matter. . . .

S. ANDERSON, v. ASTRUE,, 825 F. Supp. 2d 487 (D. Del. 2011)

. . . P, App 2, Rule 201.14. (Id.) . . . limited to the sedentary level-which would result in him "gridding out” as disabled pursuant to Rule 201.14 . . .

K. STANLEY, v. J. ASTRUE,, 410 F. App'x 974 (7th Cir. 2011)

. . . P, App. 2 § 201.14 (2009). . . .

L. O NEAL, v. J. ASTRUE,, 391 F. App'x 614 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . P, Rule 201.12 & 201.14. This describes O’Neal as of her 50th birthday. . . .

ARTHUR, v. J. ASTRUE,, 731 F. Supp. 2d 458 (E.D.N.C. 2010)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, §§ 201.06, 201.14. . . .

CURCIO, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 386 F. App'x 924 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . P, App. 2, Rules 201.00(g) & 201.14. That argument suffers from a fundamental flaw. . . .

PIERCE, v. J. ASTRUE,, 382 F. App'x 618 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . See Guidelines § 201.14-15. . . .

A. FRUMUSA, v. ZWEIGLE S, INC., 688 F. Supp. 2d 176 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . that Plaintiff had “muscle, ligament & fascia disorders,” and was disabled pursuant to Vocational Rule 201.14 . . . The examiner’s reference to Vocation Rule 201.14 pertains to the Commissioner of Social Security’s Medical . . . Vocational Rule 201.14 provides that person should be found disabled if they have a maximum sustained . . . SSA’s application of Rule 201.14 implies that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform . . .

E. KERSEY, v. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS,, 353 F. App'x 432 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . Practice § 201.14 (3d ed.2003); Heffernan v. . . .

L. ADKINS, v. J. ASTRUE,, 664 F. Supp. 2d 657 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)

. . . As a result, at age fifty, on September 16, 2006, she met Rule 201.14 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines . . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14 (2006). Per 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. . . . on the previous discussion of the ALJ’s errors and based upon the Medical-Vocational Guidelines Rule 201.14 . . .

L. SHIRD, v. J. ASTRUE,, 635 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . person closely approaching advanced age (50-54), on March 12, 2007, the ALJ correctly applied Grid Rule 201.14 . . .

G. VANDER MOLEN, v. J. ASTRUE,, 630 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (S.D. Iowa 2009)

. . . limited to unskilled sedentary work, then Vander Molen “is entitled to an award of benefits based on Rule 201.14 . . .

G. AVERY, v. J. ASTRUE,, 313 F. App'x 114 (10th Cir. 2009)

. . . Finally, at Step Five the ALJ applied Rule 201.14 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines at 20 C.F.R. pt . . .

HARRIS, v. J. ASTRUE,, 646 F. Supp. 2d 979 (N.D. Ill. 2009)

. . . significant numbers and, thus, was not disabled under the framework of Medical-Vocational Rules 201.21 and 201.14 . . .

JOHNSON, v. GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 584 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . See D.C.Code §§ 24-201.13; 24-201.14. . . .

SCHETTINO, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 295 F. App'x 543 (3d Cir. 2008)

. . . P, App. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.14 (individual "closely approaching advanced age” with sedentary residual . . .

ALEXANDER, v. WINTHROP, STIMSON, PUTNAM AND ROBERTS LONG TERM DISABILITY COVERAGE,, 497 F. Supp. 2d 429 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . semiskilled activities of other jobs, he concluded: “Section 404.1569 of the Regulations No. 4 and Rule 201.14 . . .

CHRISMAN, v. J. ASTRUE,, 487 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . person would be limited to sedentary work, and that the vocational grid rules — specifically, grid rule 201.14 . . . VOCATIONAL GRID RULE 201.14 DID NOT GOVERN THE ALJ’S DISABILITY DECISION Claimant’s final claim arises . . .

C. MARTIN, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 501 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

. . . for sedentary work, and the claimants age, education and work experience, Medical-Vocational Rules 201.14 . . . restrictions and limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using Rules 201.14 . . .

W. CANADY, v. R. NICHOLSON,, 20 Vet. App. 393 (Vet. App. 2006)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal PRACTICE § 201.14 (3d ed.2003)); see also Am. . . .

W. CANADY, v. R. NICHOLSON,, 20 Vet. App. 353 (Vet. App. 2006)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 201.14 (3d ed.2003)); see also Am. . . .

L. CAIN, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 193 F. App'x 357 (5th Cir. 2006)

. . . Part 404, App. 2, Rule 201.14 (directing a finding of disability for a claimant who is closely approaching . . .

L. WILSON, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (D. Neb. 2006)

. . . should be given to Medical/Vocational rule 201.14, i.e. Mr. . . . economy; a finding of disabled is therefore reached within the framework of medical-vocational rule 201.14 . . .

LAMOREY, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 158 F. App'x 361 (2d Cir. 2006)

. . . P., App. 2, Rules 201(g), 201.14, 201.15. . . .

GILKEY, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 417 F. Supp. 2d 949 (N.D. Ill. 2006)

. . . The ALJ held that as of March 6, 2000, Medical-Vocational rule 201.14 applied and directed a finding . . .

HAYNES, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 416 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2005)

. . . P, App. 2 § 201.14. . . . fell between the sedentary and light ranges of work, and therefore did not exactly coincide with Rule 201.14 . . .

L. CARSON, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 140 F. App'x 29 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14. . . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14; see also id. § 201.00(g). Although the ALJ found that Mr. . . .

KRUPA, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 366 F. Supp. 2d 513 (E.D. Mich. 2005)

. . . P, Appx. 2, § 201.14. The case, therefore, should be remanded for an award of benefits. . . . P, App. 2, Section 201.14 as a framework, the ALJ concluded -that the plaintiff was not disabled within . . . The ALJ also referred to the Commissioner’s Medical-Vocational Guideline Rule 201.14 in concluding that . . . Grid Rule 201.14 is only applicable when the maximum sustained work capacity is limited to sedentary . . . P, App. 2, § 201.14. . . .

HENRY, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 127 F. App'x 605 (3d Cir. 2005)

. . . She further points out that under Rule 201.14 — which when applicable requires a finding that the claimant . . .

D. LACKEY, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 127 F. App'x 455 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . closely approaching advanced age without transferable skills if less than full high school education), § 201.14 . . .

J. OGLE, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 123 F. App'x 361 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . P, App. 2, § 201.14 (grid stating claimant aged 50-54 with high-school diploma but no transferable skills . . .

DYKES, o b o A. BRYMER, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 112 F. App'x 463 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpart P, app. 2, rule 201.14. . . .

F. GUTIERREZ, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 109 F. App'x 321 (10th Cir. 2004)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14. . . .

SIMMONS, INC. v. BOMBARDIER INC., 328 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Utah 2004)

. . . Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 201.14(d). . Southwest Software, Inc. v. . . .

D. BROWN, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (N.D. Ala. 2004)

. . . , July 1998 and August 2001, plaintiffs medical vocational profile matched the requirements of Rule 201.14 . . .

WIRTH, v. Jo BARNHART,, 318 F. Supp. 2d 726 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

. . . age of 50, and is therefore no longer a “younger” individual, a mechanical application of Grid Rule 201.14 . . . should award benefits based on plaintiffs fiftieth birthday, together with the application of Grid Rule 201.14 . . . I note that Rule 201.14 provides that an individual with these same characteristics but whose previous . . .

TIDWELL, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 88 F. App'x 82 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . capability should have been found to be sedentary, leading to a finding of “disabled” under MVG Rule 201.14 . . .

McKAY, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 302 F. Supp. 2d 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . Pt. 220, App. 2, § 201.14. . . .

J. CIRALSKY, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 201.14 (3d ed.2003) [hereinafter Moore’s]. . . .

L. GROAT, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 282 F. Supp. 2d 965 (S.D. Iowa 2003)

. . . Rule 201.14 of the guidelines provides that a person who is unable to do past work, who is limited to . . .

A. DEITEMEYER, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 61 F. App'x 969 (7th Cir. 2003)

. . . App. 2, Table No. 1, rule 201.14. . . .

A. CLEMONS v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 322 F. Supp. 2d 687 (W.D. Va. 2003)

. . . . § 404.1569, and Rule 201.14 of Appendix II to Subpart P of the Administrative Regulations Part 404. . . .

CROOK, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 244 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (N.D. Ala. 2003)

. . . Rule 201.06 or Rule 201.14. Uncontradicted medical opinions of treating physicians are controlling. . . .

MARSHALL, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 228 F. Supp. 2d 938 (S.D. Iowa 2002)

. . . is limited to unskilled sedentary work, she is entitled to a finding of disability by virtue of rule 201.14 . . .

GOTZ, v. Jo BARNHART,, 207 F. Supp. 2d 886 (E.D. Wis. 2002)

. . . P, App. 2, §§ 201.06, 201.07, 201.14, & 201.15. . . .

SEITZ, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 25 F. App'x 229 (6th Cir. 2001)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Tables 1-3 (Rule 201.14). . . .

J. VERTIGAN, v. A. HALTER,, 260 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . to Sedentary Work as a Result of Severe Medically Determinable Impairment(s),” we conclude that Rule 201.14 . . .

SMITHERMAN, v. G. MASSANARI,, 149 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (M.D. Ala. 2001)

. . . contends that the ALJ erred in failing to find her disabled under Medical Vocational Rules 201.12 and 201.14 . . .

D. DIKEMAN, v. A. HALTER,, 245 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2001)

. . . . §§ 201.14, 201.15. . . .

M. IRBY, o b o M. v. A. HALTER,, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (S.D. Ala. 2001)

. . . capable of performing light work; (3) he is disabled under Medical Vocational Guideline Rules 201.12 or 201.14 . . . Irby’s final claim is that he is disabled under Medical Vocational Guideline Rules 201.12 or 201.14. . . .

C. STRONG, v. S. APFEL,, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (S.D. Iowa 2000)

. . . Plaintiffs residual functional capacity, the ALJ should have looked to medical vocational guidelines rule 201.14 . . . Medical vocational guideline rule 201.14 directs a finding of disability. . . .

R. RUSHING v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,, 185 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 201.14 (standard for retarders); id. § 201.15 (standard for car coupling operations); id. § 201.16 . . .

In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR, In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR, In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR,, 83 F.3d 306 (9th Cir. 1996)

. . . The district court determined that the bankruptcy court awarded 100% of the costs, thus awarding $89,-201.14 . . .

In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR, In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR, In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR,, 83 F.3d 306 (9th Cir. 1996)

. . . The district court determined that the bankruptcy court awarded 100% of the costs, thus awarding $89,-201.14 . . .

FOWLER, v. E. SHALALA,, 46 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 1995)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Table 1, Rule 201.14. . . .

DISTASIO, v. E. SHALALA,, 47 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1995)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 201.14. . . .

Jo DeFRANCESCO, P. DeFRANCESCO, v. SULLIVAN,, 794 F. Supp. 282 (N.D. Ill. 1992)

. . . P, App. 2, Table No. 1, Rule 201.14. . . .

S. STEWART, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 957 F.2d 581 (8th Cir. 1992)

. . . P, App. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.14. . . .

L. TAYLOR, v. SULLIVAN,, 951 F.2d 878 (8th Cir. 1991)

. . . who had significant nonexertional impairments including pain, was conclusively disabled under Rule 201.14 . . .

F. DeMOSS, Sr. v. M. HECKLER,, 706 F. Supp. 303 (D. Del. 1988)

. . . At the initial level, the Secretary determined, based on Rule 201.14 of 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix . . . Benefits on October 29, 1981, and was granted benefits commencing on March 2, 1982, pursuant to Rule 201.14 . . .

T. HUSTON, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 838 F.2d 1125 (10th Cir. 1988)

. . . If the claimant has the RFC for only sedentary work, then the applicable grid rule, 201.14 of Appendix . . .

COLE, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 820 F.2d 768 (6th Cir. 1987)

. . . skills as a result of his past work. 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Table No. 1, Rule 201.14 . . . Rule 201.14, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart 2; Richardson, 735 F.2d at 964. . . .