Cases from cite.case.law:

ASHTON, v. UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE,, 310 F. Supp. 3d 149 (D.D.C. 2018)

. . . . §§ 202.1(a), 202.10(a), containing the relevant standards. See AR at 210-12. . . .

STAR ATHLETICA, L. L. C. v. VARSITY BRANDS, INC., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (U.S. 2017)

. . . . § 202.10(c) (1960) (punctuation altered). . . .

ARGERIS, v. COLVIN,, 195 F. Supp. 3d 812 (E.D.N.C. 2016)

. . . Pt. 404, Subpart P., App. 2 § 202.10. . . .

VARSITY BRANDS, INC. v. STAR ATHLETICA, LLC,, 799 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 202.10(a). . . .

AMARIN PHARMA, INC. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. v. UNITED STATES FOOD DRUG ADMINISTRATION, M. D., 119 F. Supp. 3d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . . § 202.10(4). . FDA Promotional Guidance, at 8. . . U.S. . . .

PRUDHOMME, v. COLVIN, U. S., 605 F. App'x 250 (5th Cir. 2015)

. . . Second, this court has previously said that, at least “[i]n light of [the Secretary’s] selection of Rule 202.10 . . .

L. BROWN, v. W. COLVIN,, 47 F. Supp. 3d 180 (W.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . significant number of jobs existing in the national and local economies (Tr. 18-19), and using Rule 202.10 . . .

OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. a DBA T- v. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH a, 738 F.3d 192 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . to approve or deny legislative determinations, id. § 202.10(A). . . . See id. § 202.10(D)-(E). . . . Id. § 202.10(A). . . . Id. § 202.10(A). . . . See Huntington Beach, Cal., Code § 202.10(D). . . . .

In REED,, 492 B.R. 261 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2013)

. . . This figure must also be reduced by $202.10, representing the $0.94 per diem amount multiplied by the . . .

L. HART, v. J. ASTRUE,, 32 F. Supp. 3d 227 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . ALJ concluded that a finding of “not disabled” was directed by Medical-Vocational Rules 202.17 and 202.10 . . .

CAUDILL, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 424 F. App'x 510 (6th Cir. 2011)

. . . Pursuant to Grid Rules 202.10 and 202.11, this compelled a determination that Caudill was not disabled . . .

B. ANDERSON, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 406 F. App'x 32 (6th Cir. 2010)

. . . See id. at § 202.10. . . . P, app. 2, at § 202.10 with id. at § 201.09 (whether a claimant with certain characteristics in disabled . . .

CAMPBELL, v. J. ASTRUE,, 713 F. Supp. 2d 129 (N.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . noted that had Plaintiff been able to perform the full range of light work, Medical-Vocational rules 202.10 . . . Defendant further argues that the ALJ properly used Medical-Vocational Rules 202.10 and 202.11 as a framework . . . The ALJ used Rules 202.10 and 202.11 as a framework for decision making, both of which direct a finding . . . Medical-Vocational Rule 202.10 directs a finding of “not disabled” for a claimant who is closely approaching . . . P, App. 2 § 202.10. . . . .

WATSON, v. J. ASTRUE,, 376 F. App'x 953 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . P, app. 2 § 202.10. . . .

HAMILTON, v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 368 F. App'x 724 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . P, App. 2, §§ 201.11 (transferable skills), 202.10 (light work). . . .

SHOULARS, v. J. ASTRUE,, 671 F. Supp. 2d 801 (E.D.N.C. 2009)

. . . .1990) appealed from a district court judgment affirming the denial of his benefits under Grid Rule 202.10 . . .

LEWIS, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 666 F. Supp. 2d 730 (E.D. Mich. 2009)

. . . (Tr. 17-20) Considering the testimony of the vocational expert (VE) and the grid Rule 202.10, the ALJ . . . In using the Grid, the ALJ used as a framework Rule 202.10 for persons able to do light work and closely . . . See Vocational Rules 202.10 through 202.12, Appx. 2 Subpart P, Regulations No. 4. . . .

E. PENA, v. J. ASTRUE,, 271 F. App'x 382 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . Assuming arguendo the ALJ should have classified Pena as unskilled, rule 202.10 would apply. . . .

NEWSOME, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 528 F. Supp. 2d 733 (W.D. Mich. 2007)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Table 2, Rule 202.10. . . . Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Table 2, Rule 202.10 which directs “not disabled” rather than fairly considering . . .

JOLLY, v. Jo BARNHART,, 465 F. Supp. 2d 498 (D.S.C. 2006)

. . . Rule 202.10 states that a claimant who is closely approaching advanced age, has a limited education ( . . .

L. BAKER, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 457 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2006)

. . . Rule 202.10 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines directed a finding of “not disabled.” . . .

M. MORRIS, v. TRANS UNION LLC,, 420 F. Supp. 2d 733 (S.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . . § 202.10 (emphasis added). . . .

PIVOT POINT INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, v. CHARLENE PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, 372 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 202.10(c) (1959); footnotes omitted). . See infra note 8. . . . . Id. at 800 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(b) (1976)). . . . concluded that the Copyright Office had adopted a "reasonable and well-supported interpretation of § 202.10 . . .

R. ELLISON, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 101 F. App'x 994 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 202.10. . . .

CALHOUN, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 338 F. Supp. 2d 765 (E.D. Mich. 2004)

. . . significant number of jobs in the ■ national economy and the framework of Medical-Vocational Rules 202.10 . . .

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

. . . The court next noted that Rule 202.10 directs that a claimant with the plaintiffs qualifications who . . .

MELWANI, v. FIRST USA BANK, N. A. N. A. v. N. A. AKA AKA v. AT T, 96 F. App'x 755 (2d Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 202.10. . . . I (official staff interpretations to § 202.10). . . .

R. POWELL, v. AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. a. k. a. BSB Co. NBT FSB, HSBC M T, 310 F. Supp. 2d 481 (N.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . . § 202.10(b). . . .

DELGADO, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 305 F. Supp. 2d 704 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . Specifically referencing Rules 202.10-12 and 202.17-19, and relying on the testimony of a vocational . . . his to perform the full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rule[s] 202.17, 202.18, 202.19, 202.10 . . . P, App. 2, §§ 202.10-12, 202.17-19. . . . Nonetheless, as previously noted, the ALJ relied on Rules 202.10-12 and 202.17-19 in reaching his decision . . . P, App. 2, §§ 202.10-11, 202.17-18. . . .

MOLINE, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., 289 F. Supp. 2d 956 (N.D. Ill. 2003)

. . . Part 202.10(a); 12 C.F.R. Part 202.6(b)(6). We agree. . . .

ARMSTRONG, v. Jo BARNHART,, 287 F. Supp. 2d 881 (N.D. Ill. 2003)

. . . To the extent that this was an error, it was harmless as Rule 202.10, which assumes less than a high-school . . .

E. WRIGHT, v. G. MASSANARI,, 321 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 404.1569 (Rules 202.10 and 202.17 pertain to Wright’s exertional capacity and her age, education, . . . she argues that the ALJ should have used Rule 201.09, pertaining to sedentary work, rather than Rule 202.10 . . .

HOLLINS, v. G. MASSANARI,, 49 F. App'x 533 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . range of light work (which he also concluded she was not), Hollins would be “not disabled” under Rule 202.10 . . . analyzed Hollins’s literacy and determined that she was illiterate, he would have had to apply not Rule 202.10 . . .

ANDERSON, v. G. MASSANARI,, 210 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D. Conn. 2002)

. . . The ALJ relied on Sections 404.1569 and 416.969 as well as the framework of Rule 202.10, Table 2, Appendix . . . a finding of “not disabled” is required by application of the framework of Medical-Vocational Rule 202.10 . . .

ORANGE COUNTY, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., 812 So. 2d 475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See §§ 202.10-.41, Fla. Stat. (2002). . . . .

In BELLI, v., 268 B.R. 851 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001)

. . . finality, death knell, and pragmatic finality doctrines — emerge from the cases. 19 MooRE §§ 202.07 - 202.10 . . .

A. HOWARD, v. MASSANARI,, 255 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . P, App. 2, specifically Rules 202.10 and 202.17, provide a framework for a finding of not disabled.” . . . P, App. 2, § 202.10. . . .

P. RANGEL, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 138 F. Supp. 2d 921 (E.D. Mich. 2001)

. . . The ALJ, however, applied § 202.10 in plaintiffs case. . . . The difference between § 201.09 and 202.10, of course, is defined by the difference between sedentary . . .

DAVISON, v. A. HALTER,, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (S.D. Ala. 2001)

. . . . § 202.00, Rules 202.10 & 202.11, or medium work, see 20 C.F.R. § 203.00, Rule 203.19. . . .

L. THOMPSON, v. S. APFEL,, 199 F. Supp. 2d 798 (W.D. Tenn. 2001)

. . . capacity for light work, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, section 404.1569 and Rule 202.10 . . .

REGINO CAVAZOS, v. S. APFEL,, 130 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Ind. 2000)

. . . claimant’s age, educational background, and work experience, Sections 404.1569 and 416.969 and Rules 202.10 . . .

ETS- HOKIN, v. SKYY SPIRITS, INC. a, 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 202.10(b). . . .

FRANCE v. S. APFEL,, 87 F. Supp. 2d 484 (D. Md. 2000)

. . . In light of these characteristics, the ALJ evaluated the claimant under Medical-Vocational Rule 202.10 . . . Rule 202.10 applies to individuals who are “closely approaching advanced age”; who have limited or less . . . Rule 202.10 directs a finding of not disabled for such individuals. . . .

STEAKHOUSE, INCORPORATED, a a v. CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA, a, 166 F.3d 634 (4th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 14-202.10(2). . . . .

R. WILLIS G. v. QUALITY MORTGAGE USA, INC., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (M.D. Ala. 1998)

. . . . §§ 202.10-202.12. . The plaintiffs also rely on Smith v. First Family Fin. . . .

CRAWFORD, v. S. CHATER,, 997 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Colo. 1998)

. . . The ALJ applied Rule 202.10 in Table No. 2, Appendix 2 of Subpart P. . . .

C. KING, v. S. APFEL,, 991 F. Supp. 1101 (E.D. Mo. 1997)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 202.10, he is not disabled; there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy . . . Rules 202.09 and 202.10 of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. . . . The ALJ referred to Rule 202.10 in Finding No. 11, along with plaintiffs “education,” to conclude that . . . Yet in his subsequent findings, the ALJ stated that Rule 202.10 applies (plaintiff is “at least literate . . . He refers to Rule 202.10, but makes no specific reference to plaintiffs claims of illiteracy; and he . . .

MOM N POPS, INC. v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, a, 979 F. Supp. 372 (W.D.N.C. 1997)

. . . Gen.Stat. § 14-202.10 is specifically incorporated as an appendix to the Zoning Ordinance. . . . Stat. § 14-202.10 as follows: (1) “Adult bookstore” means a bookstore: a. . . . Gen.Stat. § 14-202.10(1), (6), (9), (10), (11). . . . devices”, as defined in G.S. 14-202.10(9). . . . devices”, as defined in G.S. 14-202.10(9). . . .

PENA, v. S. CHATER,, 968 F. Supp. 930 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . ALJ Goldman had used the guidelines, Pena would be considered "Not Disabled” under Vocational Rule 202.10 . . .

L. JOHNSON, v. S. CHATER,, 108 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 1997)

. . . Id. at Rule 202.10. . . .

L. BAKER, v. S. CHATER,, 957 F. Supp. 75 (D. Md. 1996)

. . . activities, Finding No. 10; 8) § 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and § 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rule 202.10 . . .

BLYTHER, v. S. CHATER,, 931 F. Supp. 60 (D. Mass. 1996)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, and determined that, pursuant to Grid Rule 202.10, Ms. . . . Blyther’s vocational profile is reflected in Grid Rule 202.10, this Court concludes that the ALJ’s use . . . Under Rule 202.10 of the Grid, therefore, Ms. Blyther was not disabled. . . .

LEYBA, v. S. CHATER,, 983 F. Supp. 1048 (D.N.M. 1996)

. . . P., App. 2, Table No. 2, Rule 202.10 (202.10). This categorization was crucial in Leyba’s case. . . . If the ALJ applied 202.01, rather than 202.10, the grids would have dictated that Leyba was disabled, . . .

K. HOPE, INC. v. ONSLOW COUNTY, TREANTS ENTERPRISES, v, ONSLOW COUNTY, A. MERCER, Sr. t a v. ONSLOW COUNTY,, 911 F. Supp. 948 (E.D.N.C. 1995)

. . . . ch. 14, art. 26A North Carolina’s legislature has also enacted N.C.Gen.Stat. ch. 14, art. 26A, §§ 202.10 . . . "Adult Establishments” are defined far more narrowly by N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-202.10 than are "Adult Businesses . . . Stat. § 14-202.10. . . . .

SCOTT, v. E. SHALALA,, 879 F. Supp. 109 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

. . . claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education and work experience, the Secretary found that Rule 202.10 . . .

SIBLEY, v. SHALALA,, 863 F. Supp. 801 (N.D. Ill. 1994)

. . . from his prior work experience, the Grid would still direct a finding of “not disabled” under Rules 202.10 . . . P, App. 2, §§ 202.10; 202.11. . . .

J. PIERCE, v. CITIBANK SOUTH DAKOTA N. A. a a, 843 F. Supp. 646 (D. Or. 1994)

. . . Section 202.14(c) provides that “[a] creditor’s failure to comply with Sections ... 202.9, 202.10 ... . . . On discovering an error under Sections 202.9 and 202.10, the creditor shall correct it as soon as possible . . .

PARFUMS GIVENCHY, INC. v. C C BEAUTY SALES, INC., 832 F. Supp. 1378 (C.D. Cal. 1993)

. . . . § 202.10(c) (1992). . . .

M. LEGGITT, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 812 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Colo. 1992)

. . . The AU then turned to the grids and applied rule 202.10 for a final determination of “not disabled.” . . . Defendant argues that the ALJ erred in applying rule 202.10 as that rule is for a claimant 50-54 years . . .

SCIVALLY, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 966 F.2d 1070 (7th Cir. 1992)

. . . capacity for light work, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, section 404.1569 and Rule 202.10 . . .

GRIFFITH, v. SULLIVAN,, 789 F. Supp. 478 (D. Mass. 1992)

. . . For example, under Rule 202.10, at issue in Heckler, “a significant number of jobs exist for a person . . . Secretary assessed the claimant’s individual abilities in a hearing, compared those abilities with Rule 202.10 . . .

MANZO, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 784 F. Supp. 1152 (D.N.J. 1991)

. . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rules 202.10 and 202.11, Table No. 2 of Appendix 2, Subpart . . .

SERRA, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 762 F. Supp. 1030 (W.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . capacity for light work, the grids, specifically 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Rules 202.10 . . .

ODDZON PRODUCTS, INC. v. OMAN,, 924 F.2d 346 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 202.10(a): “In order to be accepted as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, the work must embody . . .

K. MOORE, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 919 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1990)

. . . On October 5, 1988, the ALJ concluded that Rules 202.10 and 202.11 of the Appendix 2 of the Secretary . . . Under Rules 202.10 and 202.11 of the guidelines, a claimant with Moore’s profile (fifty-three years of . . .

L. SKINNER, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH HUMAN SERVICES,, 902 F.2d 447 (6th Cir. 1990)

. . . Thus, relying upon the vocational expert’s testimony and the framework of Rule 202.10 of the Medical . . . Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Table 2, Rule 202.10. . . .

JOHNSON, v. Dr. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 894 F.2d 683 (5th Cir. 1990)

. . . Under rules 202.10 and 202.11 of the guidelines, a claimant with Johnson’s profile (fifty years of age . . . See 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Sub-part P, App. 2, Table No. 2, Rules 202.10 and 202.11. . . .

ALBRITTON, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 889 F.2d 640 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . As a result of these determinations, the Secretary applied Rule 202.10, leading to a decision of “not . . . Secretary’s finding that Albritton had a marginal education and the consequent application of Rule 202.10 . . . P, App. 2, Table No. 2, Rule 202.10. . . . In light of his selection of Rule 202.10 to decide Albritton’s case, the Secretary's finding of non-materiality . . . P, App. 2, Table No. 2, Rule 202.10. . . .

B. ANDERSON, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 868 F.2d 921 (7th Cir. 1989)

. . . Even if Anderson was considered to be a person “closely approaching advanced age,” application of Rule 202.10 . . .

MURPHY, v. R. BOWEN,, 691 F. Supp. 830 (D.N.J. 1988)

. . . that she is capable of both light and sedentary work, and therefore, is not disabled pursuant to Rule 202.10 . . . school and is closely approaching advanced age, the AU should have applied Rule 201.10 rather than 202.10 . . .

A. VALENCIA, v. R. BOWEN,, 691 F. Supp. 1120 (N.D. Ill. 1988)

. . . The ALJ’s Use of the Grid The AU used Rule 202.10 to determine that plaintiff is disabled. . . . plaintiff’s vocational factors and residual functional capacity correspond with the criteria of Rule 202.10 . . . The parties do not dispute that plaintiff satisfies the age, skill and education requirements of Rule 202.10 . . .

BRYANT, v. R. BOWEN,, 683 F. Supp. 95 (D.N.J. 1988)

. . . P, App. 2, Table No. 2, Rule 202.10, is supported by substantial evidence, and this Court finds that . . .

H. PAULSON, v. R. BOWEN,, 836 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1988)

. . . The AU applied Rules 202.10 and 202.11 of Table No. 2, 20 C.F.R., App. 2, to reach the conclusion that . . . operating under the erroneous finding that Paulson could perform “light” work, the AU applied Grid Rules 202.10 . . . Grid Rules 202.10, 202.11, and 202.12 each direct a finding of “not disabled,” irrespective of the level . . .

M. PFEISTER, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 673 F. Supp. 723 (W.D. Pa. 1987)

. . . Applying these factors, rules 202.10 or 203.18 in Tables 2 and 3 of 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. . . .

WATSON, v. R. BOWEN,, 671 F. Supp. 580 (N.D. Ind. 1987)

. . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rule 202.10, Table . . .

L. CRADY, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH HUMAN SERVICES,, 835 F.2d 617 (6th Cir. 1987)

. . . . § 404.1563), Rule 202.10, as set forth in Table No. 2 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines contained . . . placed the claimant in that category, the AU was correct in his conclusion that “the framework of Rule 202.10 . . .

SIMS, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 666 F. Supp. 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1987)

. . . The AU applied Rule 202.10 to Sims, indicating that he found her to be “closely approaching advanced . . .

ARCE CRESPO, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 831 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987)

. . . Part 404, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Rules 202.10 and 202.-11 (“the grid”), on the ground that claimant retained . . .

E. LIVELY, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 820 F.2d 1391 (4th Cir. 1987)

. . . The particular Grid Rule applied was Rule 202.10, pertaining to persons under age 55, whose exertional . . .

ODIERNO, v. R. BOWEN,, 655 F. Supp. 173 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . Rule 202.10 directs that a claimant with Odierno’s qualifications who is between fifty and fifty-five . . .

J. DIXON, v. M. HECKLER,, 811 F.2d 506 (10th Cir. 1987)

. . . Accordingly, the grid classifications at issue are Rules 202.09 and 202.10: 20 C.P.R. . . . The AU found that Dixon had a "marginal education” and that Rule 202.10 “would direct a conclusion of . . .

FRAGA, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 810 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1987)

. . . The ALJ correctly determined that these characteristics corresponded to criteria in Rule 202.10 of Table . . . Subpart P, App. 2, Table No. 2, Rule 202.10. . . .

JOHN MULLER COMPANY, INC. v. NEW YORK ARROWS SOCCER TEAM, INC. A. M. D., 802 F.2d 989 (8th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 202.10(a) (1985); Gardenia Flowers, Inc. v. . . .

MAGIC MARKETING, INC. v. MAILING SERVICES OF PITTSBURGH, INC. J., 634 F. Supp. 769 (W.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . . § 202.10(c). We held above that the envelopes lack this requisite level of creativity. . . .

DAVIS, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 634 F. Supp. 174 (E.D. Mich. 1986)

. . . a residual functional capacity (RFC) for sedentary work, § 201.09, but not if his RFC was light, § 202.10 . . . The grid § 202.10 directs a finding of not disabled for the period under analysis during the first administrative . . .

GOODMAN, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY UNSAFE STRUCTURES BOARD,, 480 So. 2d 217 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Metropolitan Dade County Unsafe Structures Board, 458 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); section 202.10(b), . . .

DAMRON, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 778 F.2d 279 (6th Cir. 1985)

. . . he found that in accordance with 20 C.F.R. 416.969 and 20 C.F.R. 404 Appendix 2 of Subpart P, Rule 202.10 . . .

H. KANE, v. HECKLER,, 776 F.2d 1130 (3d Cir. 1985)

. . . Rule 202.10 requires a finding of not disabled for such a claimant, whether or not his prior work skills . . .

SOUZA v. M. HECKLER,, 622 F. Supp. 182 (D.R.I. 1985)

. . . . § 404, sub-part P, Appendix 2, Rule 202.10 of the Social Security Regulations (the medical vocational . . .

RONALD LITOFF, LTD. v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, Co. A. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY v. A. KUSH ASSOCIATES LIMITED, d b a a k a a k a, 621 F. Supp. 981 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)

. . . . § 202.10(a); Cynthia Designs, Inc. v. . . .

CAROL BARNHART INC. v. ECONOMY COVER CORPORATION,, 773 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 202.10(c) ((1959), as amended June 18, 1959) (revoked 1978), reprinted in 4 M. . . . Stein; the second from its post-Mazer § 202.10(c). . . .

D. MULLEN, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 762 F.2d 509 (6th Cir. 1985)

. . . evidence, concluded that Mullen was capable of doing light work and was therefore not disabled under Rule 202.10 . . .

ROOT, v. M. HECKLER,, 618 F. Supp. 76 (D. Del. 1985)

. . . . § 404, subpart P, appendix 2, Rules 202.10, 202.11. . . .

E. WASHINGTON, v. M. HECKLER,, 756 F.2d 959 (3d Cir. 1985)

. . . which directs a decision of not disabled (and after the claimant’s 50th birthday, all criteria of Rule 202.10 . . . nondisability on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines in Appendix 2 of the Regulations, specifically Rule 202.10 . . .

L. MAYNOR, v. M. HECKLER,, 597 F. Supp. 457 (D.D.C. 1984)

. . . Appendix 2, Table No. 2, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4, and therein found that Rule 202.10 directed a decision . . . pain significantly affects his capacity to do light work, instead of directing a decision under Rule 202.10 . . .

J. HUNT, v. M. HECKLER,, 748 F.2d 478 (8th Cir. 1984)

. . . He placed Hunt on the grid under § 202.10 which provides: Table No. 2 — Residual Functional Capacity: . . . Result of Severe Medically Determinable Impairments Rule Age Education Previous Work Experience Decision 202.10 . . .

EDCO ENTERPRISES, INC. d b a v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY UNSAFE STRUCTURES BOARD, 458 So. 2d 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . We reject that argument in view of Section 202.10(b), South Florida Building Code (1979) which provides . . .

BOONE, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 595 F. Supp. 758 (E.D. Mich. 1984)

. . . Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge’s application of Rules 202.10 and 202.11 of the grid . . .

F. ROUSH, v. M. HECKLER,, 632 F. Supp. 710 (S.D. Ohio 1984)

. . . person closely approaching advanced age was outcome determinative of his claim, because under Rules 202.10 . . . Rules 202.01 and 202.02 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines should have been applied rather than Rules 202.10 . . . unskilled or skilled with no transferrable skills and a limited education are not disabled under Rules 202.10 . . .

WARNER BROS. INC. v. GAY TOYS, INC., 724 F.2d 327 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . . § 202.10 (1983); see Kieselstein-Cord v. . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)