Cases from cite.case.law:

. . . of unskilled sedentary work and that she was, therefore, not disabled using Medical-Vocational Rules 201.18 . . . Sawyer was not disabled using Medical-Vocational Rules 201.18 and 201.24 (Tr. p. 25.) . . .

. . . P, App. 2, §§ 201.18-19, 202.18-19. . . .

. . . . § 201.18(a)(5) (“For the purposes of this section, the term copyright owner, in the case of any work . . . (emphasis omitted); id. § 201.18(a)(6) (“In the case where the work has more than one copyright owner . . .

. . . P, app. 2 §§ 201.09, 201.18. . . .

. . . concluded that “[biased on a residual functional capacity for a full range of sedentary work, Rules 201.18 . . . decisionmaking, would direct a finding of ‘not disabled.’ ” Where, as here, the AL J’s findings align with Rule 201.18 . . . Rule 201.18 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines directs a finding of “not disabled” for 45-49 year old . . .

. . . . § 201.18(d)(v)(A), like its regulatory cousin, section 201.10(b), requires that the notice for a compulsory . . . Section 201.18(g) also provides a harmless error provision that, like in 201.10(e)(1), is keyed to whether . . .

. . . . § 201.18, specifies the form, content, and manner of service for the notice. . . . .” § 201.18(c)(1). . . . It must contain a “clear statement,” § 201.18(c)(2), identifying the licensee, the musical composition . . . See § 201.18(d). These requirements need not be followed with Prussian rigidity, however. . . . True, Karen’s form requests did not comply with § 201.18’s requirements to the letter. . . .

. . . P, App. 2, Rules 201.18 to 201.22. . . .

. . . See Rule 201.18, App. 2 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. § 404; HALLEX II-5-3-2. . . .

. . . . § 404 App. 2., Rule 201.18. . . .

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, §§ 201.18, 202.16-.17). . . .

. . . Based on the testimony of the vocational expert, and considering Rule 201.18, Appendix 2, Subpart P, . . . Medical-Vocational Guideline, commonly referred to a the “grid rules,” 201.17 would apply instead of Grid Rule 201.18 . . .

. . . P, App. 2, rules 201.18 & 201.21; (3) the ALJ failed to give controlling weight to her treating physician . . .

. . . . § 201.18(b)(2)(i). . Lopez-Gomez v. . . .

. . . , education (limited), work experience (unskilled) and exertional capacity for sedentary work, Rule 201.18 . . .

. . . sedentary work, section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rules 201.18 . . . limitations do not allow him to perform the full range of sedentary work, using the above-cited Rules 201.18 . . .

. . . concluded that a finding of “not disabled” was directed by Section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rule 201.18 . . . The ALJ concluded that, pursuant to Rule No. 201.18 of Table 1, Appendix 2 (“the grids”), Austin was . . .

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, §§ 201.18 & 202.17. . . .

. . . work, and the Claimant’s age, educational background, and work experience, Section 416.969 and Rule 201.18 . . .

. . . VE that substantial numbers of jobs exist which Plaintiff could perform under the framework of Rules 201.18 . . . Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ mechanically applied the age requirement of Rules 201.18 and 201.19 . . . stated that, “If the claimant were able to perform all of the requirements of sedentary work, Rules 201.18 . . . Based on VE testimony, and also considering rules 201.18 and 201.19 of the guidelines as a framework, . . . P, App. 2, Table No. 1, rules 201.18, 201.19. . . .

. . . The ALJ determined that grid rule 201.18 applies, which directs the conclusion that Silveira is not disabled . . . Rule 201.18 provides that a claimant who is limited to sedentary work, is 45-49 years old, has a limited . . . P, app. 2, table 1, rule 201.18. . . . .

. . . nonex-ertional limitations stemming from a mental impairment, the ALJ should not have relied on Rule 201.18 . . . The ALJ again relied on Rule 201.18 of the guidelines to find that Holz was not disabled until he reached . . .

. . . When a claimant can perform'the full range of sedentary work, Rule 201.18, Table No. 1, Appendix 2, Subpart . . .

. . . P, App. 2, Tbl. 1, Rule 201.18, and that she could perform a full range of sedentary work prior to June . . . that she completed the seventh grade; and, that her past relevant work was unskilled, found that Rule 201.18 . . . P, App. 2, Tbl. 1, Rule 201.18. . . . P, App. 2, Tbl. 1, Rule 201.18. (R. at 28-29.) . . . P, App. 2, Tbl. 1, Rule 201.18; (R. at 29). . . .

. . . Since plaintiff was 49 at the time of the ALJ hearing, the ALJ applied Rule 201.18 and found plaintiff . . .

. . . . § 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rules 201.09 and 201.18, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart P. . . .

. . . perform more than sedentary work, but even if she were reduced to sedentary employment, Vocational Rule 201.18 . . .

. . . he was last insured, education and vocational skills designated him as not being disabled under Rule 201.18 . . . Rule 201.18 predetermines that an individual is not disabled if (i) they are between the ages of 45-49 . . . forty-nine years of age category for the purposes of determining his disability status pursuant to Rule 201.18 . . .

. . . P, App. 2, and §§ 201.18, 202.17. . . .

. . . other work. (8) Based on his age, education, work experience, and capacity for sedentary work, Rule 201.18 . . . nonexertional limitations do not allow him to perform the full range of sedentary work, using Rule 201.18 . . . Although plaintiff met all the Rule 201.18 criteria, the ALJ did not automatically adhere to the Rule . . .

. . . .-1569 and Rules 201.18 and 201.19, Table No. 2, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 would direct . . .

. . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rule 201.18, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . .

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rules 201.18 and 201.19 of Table No. 1. . . .

. . . Table 1, Rules 201.18 and 201.19 directed a conclusion of “not disabled.” . . .

. . . In his decision the ALJ stated that Rule 201.18 directed a finding of not disabled because of Forsythe . . . Rule 201.18, however, pertains to residual functional capacity for sedentary work. . . .

. . . Applying Rules 201.18, 201.19, and 201.20 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, the AU concluded that . . .

. . . . § 1-201.18 (1981) (emphasis added). . . .

. . . did not identically match, the characteristics found in the residual functional capacity grid at Rule 201.18 . . .

. . . . § 404, Sub-part P, Appendix 2, Rules 201.18-201.20, dictated a finding that Kapusta was not disabled . . . he was not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1569, 416.-969; 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rules 201.18 . . .

. . . The fact that neighboring rule 201.18 refers to an education component of “limited or less — at least . . . Surely a debate between the standards of 201.19 and 201.18 or 201.17 would have been more likely than . . . RULES 201.18 AND 201.17 It could be that the AU was actually debating between 201.18 and 201.19. . . . Thus, if the AU’s debate was actually between 201.18 and 201.19, this would explain the AU’s neglect . . . This would only be true if the debate was between 201.17 and 201.18. . . .

. . . Based on the evidence presented, including vocational expert testimony, and using Rule 201.18 of the . . . The Secretary argues that as a consequence of the finding that Starks is literate, Rule 201.18 governs . . . intellect significantly limited his ability to perform sedentary work, the AU could not rely solely on Rule 201.18 . . . He used Rule 201.18 only as a frame of reference, which was not improper. . . .

. . . Finally, § 201.18(b) provides that if the “reviews reveal serious problems with respect to compliance . . .

. . . Considering her age, education and residual functional capacity, the AU applied Rule 201.18 of 20 C.F.R . . .

. . . vocational factors are properly applied, Anderson would still be considered “not disabled” under Rule 201.18 . . .

. . . In turn, “supplemental agreement” is defined by Section 1-201.18 of ASPR to mean “any contract modification . . .

. . . Rule 201.18 provides that an individual in appellant’s age group who is of limited education but able . . .

. . . Section 416.969 of Regulations No. 4 and Rules 201.18, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . . Considering her age, education, and unskilled work background, Rule 201.18 would direct a finding of . . . Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.969, the ALJ used Rule 201.18 of Table 1 to conclude that, on the basis of . . . II, rule 202.09 (disabled) with id. rule 201.18 (not disabled). . . .

. . . On remand, after a supplemental hearing, the AU applied Rule 201.18 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines . . . residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work and applied medical-vocational Rule 201.18 . . . See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpart P, app. 2, Rule 201.18. c. . . .

. . . Accordingly, the AU applied Rule 201.18 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. . . .

. . . The AU then applied rule 201.18 of the Guidelines, to find that plaintiff is not disabled. . . . In his opinion, the AU stated, Accordingly, Rule 201.18, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart P of Regulation . . .

. . . jobs such as checker or sorter, plaintiff’s medical and vocational characteristics fit within Rules 201.18 . . .

. . . He applied Rules 201.18 and 201.24, which direct a finding of “not disabled” if the claimant is a younger . . . Subpart P, App. 2, §§ 201.18 and 201.24. . . .

. . . Considering the claimant’s age, education and previous work experience, pursuant to Rule 201.18 of Appendix . . .

. . . Council could properly rule that appellant’s profile so fitted within Table 1 of Appendix 2, Rules 201.18 . . .

. . . Consequently, the Secretary erred in applying Rule 201.18 to Mr. . . .

. . . that Doughty retained the physical capacity to perform sedentary work and therefore, based upon Rules 201.18 . . .

. . . 1983) (unskilled claimants aged 50 and over granted benefits), with 20 C.F.R. subpart P, app. 2, §§ 201.18 . . .

. . . P, app. 2, Rule 201.18, dictated a finding of “not disabled,” unless nonexertional limitations could . . .

. . . a “marginal” education, as defined in the Social Security Administration Regulations, and that Rule 201.18 . . .

. . . In determining that plaintiff was not disabled he relied upon Rule 201.18, Table No. 1, App. 2, Subparts . . . Rule 201.18, Table No. 1, App. 2, Subparts P and I, Reg. Nos. 4 and 16. . . .

. . . AU erred in finding that he had a “limited education” which, in turn, required the AU to apply Rule 201.18 . . .

. . . The Council found that plaintiff’s situation more closely approached that described in Rule 201.18 (45 . . . that since plaintiff is “literate and ... able to communicate in English,” Record at 155, then Rule 201.18 . . . Rule 201.18. . . .

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, §§ 201.18-.20 and ,24-.26, the AU found appellant not disabled. . . .

. . . Schweiker, 670 F.2d 81, 83 (7th Cir.1982), Rule 201.18 provides that if the applicant is 45-49 years . . . Here the ALJ’s conclusion that either Rule 201.18 or Rule 201.19 applied to Holliday and that both rules . . . The conclusion that Holliday’s past work was “semi-skilled” is relevant in part to whether Rule 201.18 . . . Logically, just as 201.18 directs a verdict of “not disabled” where it applies, so 201.19 directs that . . . However, we conclude that the ALJ’s findings upon which he based his reliance upon Rules 201.18 and 201.19 . . .

. . . Jones could perform sedentary work, was 47 years old, and had finished the eighth grade to Rule 201.18 . . .

. . . considered unskilled with no transfer-rable skills), Vocational Rules 203.25 (medium) or 202.17 (light) or 201.18 . . . at a substantial gainful level or that under Vocational Rules 203.25 (medium) or 202.17 (light) or 201.18 . . .

. . . See Rule 201.18. . . .

. . . Rule 201.18, Table No. 1, 20 C.F.R. Appendix 2. . . . noticed “fact” which the ALJ was required to make under the Regulations 404.1513 and 416.913 and Rule 201.18 . . .

. . . See Grid, Rules 201.18, 201.23. . . .

. . . Based on Spencer’s age, the AU found that Table 1 (Rule 201.18) directed a finding of “not disabled.” . . . Capability Limited to Sedentary Work as a Result Rule Age Education Previous work experience Decision 201.18 . . .

. . . work skills and only limited education is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, Appendix 2 § 201.18 . . . Compare 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, Appendix 2 § 201.09 with id. at § 201.18. . . .

. . . . § 404.1511(b), the ALJ determined that Rule 201.18 of Table 1 applied and directed a conclusion of . . . Rule 201.18, found to be applicable in this case, reads as follows: Table No. 1 — Residual Functional . . .

. . . Cummins’ characteristics, as found by the ALJ, put him in the row of Table 1 that is labeled Rule 201.18 . . . But we do not have to evaluate Appendix 2 in its entirety in order to decide whether Rule 201.18 is reasonable . . . This placed him at the upper end of the age range in Rule 201.18. . . . We have assumed thus far that Cummins’ characteristics fit the requirements of Rule 201.18 exactly, but . . .

. . . Chapter III, Subpart B, Appendix 2, Rule 201.18. . . .

. . . Subpart P, App. 2, Rule 201.18. . . . Rule 201.18 directs a finding that a claimant is not disabled if he is 45-49 years of age, has limited . . . However, Rule 201.18 is restricted to claimants who are capable of performing only sedentary work. . . .

. . . It appears that one of the rules set out earlier, rule 201.18, would have most closely fit the facts . . .

. . . If plaintiff is classified as a “younger individual age 45-19”, Rule 201.18 directs a finding of not . . . the determination of disability, the Court concludes a finding of non-disability was directed by Rule 201.18 . . . Compare 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, App. 2, Rule 201.09 with 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, App. 2, Rule 201.18. . . . finding on non-disability is directed. 20 C.F.R. 404.1513 (1979); 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, App. 2, Rule 201.18 . . . Since she was then 47 years old, Rule 201.18 applies to deny benefits. . . .

. . . case, given her age, education, work experience and physical capacity, is governed by Vocational Rule 201.18 . . . Vocational Rule 201.18, which the ALJ found to govern Ms. . . . Rich is not disabled, based as it is on the application of Vocational Rule 201.18, would fall. . . . Rich can do sedentary work and thus, under Vocational 201.18, is not disabled does not adequately evaluate . . .

. . . Based on claimant’s exertional limitations, only Regulation 416.913, Rules 201.23 and 201.18, Table No . . . these non-exertional limitations did not prevent the plaintiff from doing sedentary work and that Rules 201.18 . . .

. . . Section 404.1513 and Rule 201.18 of Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 require that . . .

. . . . § 1-201.18 (1975), as follows: Supplemental Agreement means any contract modification which is accomplished . . . Section 1-201.18 refers to 32 C.F.R. § 16-103 (1975) which prescribes the proper form to be used for . . . This form shall be used for: ****** (v) supplemental agreements as defined in 1 — 201.18; and ****** . . .

. . . . § 1-201.18 (1975), as follows: Supplemental Agreement means any contract modification which is accomplished . . . Section 1-201.18 refers to 32 C.F.R. § 16-103 (1975) which prescribes the proper form to be used for . . . This form shall be used for: * * * * * (v) supplemental agreements as defined in 1-201.18; and * * * . . .

. . . Unrealized gross profit per return (as corrected)_$252, 517.11 Unrealized gross profit determined_ 178, 201.18 . . .

. . . Wisconsin Supreme Court which sustained the constitutionality as construed and applied to appellant of § 201.18 . . . Sec. 201.18 reads as follows: “Reserves, basis for. (1) The unearned premium or reinsurance reserve for . . . of appellant’s premiums and that 50 per cent of them must be included in the reserve required by § 201.18 . . . The Wisconsin Supreme Court sustained the commissioner, holding (1) that § 201.18 required a reserve . . . which covered the over-all liability of the appellant and (2) that § 201.18 as construed and applied . . .