The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . . § 202.11(d)(2). . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d) (“The following structures, features, or works cannot be registered: ... (2) Standard features . . .
. . . disabled under the applicable sedentary-work rule, 201.10, but pot under the applicable light-work- rule, 202.11 . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(2); Zitz v. Pereira, 119 F.Supp.2d 133, 147 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(2) ).) . . . The regulation on which RC Home relies, 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(d)(2), relates to the definition of "architectural . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(2). . . .
. . . full range of light work, a finding of “not disabled” would be directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 202.11 . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(2); Zitz v. Pereira, 119 F.Supp.2d 133, 147 (E.D.N.Y.1999). . . .
. . . and notorious”, involve “common notoriety" or are "commonly known”,’ Ehrhardt, Florida’Evi- - dence § 202.11 . . . Prac., Florida Evidence, § 202.11 (2015 ed.) . . .
. . . . § 202.11. Purely utilitarian aspects of a work are similarly not protectable. . . . See 37 C.F.R. § 202.11. . . . stating that the stone and stucco fagade was a feature of Sari’s neighbor’s house)); see 37 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . . Windows are. standard features excluded from copyright protection. 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(d) (“The following . . . building components” that may not be registered and are thus not entitled to protection. 37 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(2), as well as “common windows, doors, and other staple building components,” H.R.Rep. . . .
. . . light work, a finding of ‘not disabled’ would be directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 202.18 and Rule 202.11 . . .
. . . P.App. 2 § 202.11 with id. § 202.18. . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(3), which “prescribes rules pertaining to the registration of architectural works.” . . . works that were “constructed or otherwise published” from the protections of the AWCPA. 37 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . . The Court of Appeal’s definition of “constructed” in § 202.11(d)(3) should also apply to the definition . . .
. . . .”); 37 C.F.R. 202.11(d)(3) (providing that building designs published (or buildings actually constructed . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(2)) [hereinafter Ross II ]. . . . See 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(d)(2); Boss III, 977 F.Supp.2d at 593. . . . See 87 C.F.R. § 202.11(d)(2). . . . Ross III, 977 F.Supp.2d at 593 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(d)(2)). . Id. (citing H.R.Rep. . . . See Appendix K. . 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(d)(2). . Ross III, 977 F.Supp.2d at 593 (citing H.R.Rep. . . .
. . . , education and work experience, a finding of ‘not disabled’ is directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 202.11 . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 202.11. . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(2), or design elements that are functionally required, H.R.Rep. . . .
. . . . § 202.11(c)(4). . . .
. . . . § 202.11. . . . reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6935, 6949, are explicitly excluded. 17 U.S.C. § 101; see 37 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . .
. . . were Claimant able to perform the full range of light work, Medical-Vocational Rule 202.18 and Rule 202.11 . . . For that reason, the ALJ’s application of Guidelines Rules 202.11 and 202.18 presumes that a significant . . . light of these factors, the ALJ properly determined that “under the framework” of Guidelines Rules 202.11 . . .
. . . Rules 202.11 & 202.12.) . . .
. . . P, App. 2, R. 202.11. . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(2). . . .
. . . . § 202.11(c)(3). . . .
. . . Pursuant to Grid Rules 202.10 and 202.11, this compelled a determination that Caudill was not disabled . . .
. . . . § 202.11(b)(2). . . . [and] standard configurations of spaces." 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(d) (emphasis added). . . .
. . . P, App. 2, § 202.11-.12, the finding that Mezzacappa can do light work is not supported by substantial . . .
. . . See Tr. 30 (citing Medical-Vocational Rule 202.11). . . .
. . . . § 202.11(c)(4). . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(2)). . . . In support of this new position, Rule Joy cites 37 C.F.R. § 202.11, the section of the Code of Federal . . . Id. § 202.11(b)(2). . . . Id. § 202.11(d)(1). . . . Id. § 202.11(d)(2). . . .
. . . had Plaintiff been able to perform the full range of light work, Medical-Vocational rules 202.10 and 202.11 . . . Defendant further argues that the ALJ properly used Medical-Vocational Rules 202.10 and 202.11 as a framework . . . P, App. 2 §§ 202.09-202.11. . . . The ALJ used Rules 202.10 and 202.11 as a framework for decision making, both of which direct a finding . . . P, App. 2 § 202.11. . Radiculopathy as a "[disorder of the spinal nerve roots.” . . .
. . . . § 202.11(b)(2). . . . Id. § 202.11(d)(1). . . .
. . . . § 202.11(b)(2). . . . Id. § 202.11(d)(1). . . .
. . . arguing the magistrate judge’s finding that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly applied Rule 202.11 . . . Rule 202.09 directs a finding of “disabled,” whereas Rule 202.11 directs a finding of “not disabled.” . . . Rule 202.11 applies when the individual’s education level is “[l]imited or less.” 20 C.F.R. . . . P, App. 2 § 202.11. Both of these education levels are statutorily defined. . . . P, App. 2, Table 2, § 202.11. . . .
. . . able to do light work and closely approaching advanced age; the plaintiff argues that it should be 202.11 . . .
. . . . § 202.11(c)(4). . . .
. . . . § 202.11(b)(2). . . . Id. at § 202.11(d)(1). . . .
. . . The ALJ applied rule 202.11, which rejects a disability finding for an individual who has the residual . . .
. . . . § 202.11(b)(2). . . . [and] standard configurations of spaces ... ”. 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(d). . . . See, 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(b)(2); Black’s Law Dictionary 194-95 (8th ed.2004) (defining “building” as a . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(3)(I). . . . constitute publication for purposes of registration, unless multiple copies are constructed. 37 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . . Furthermore, 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(c)(5) addresses designs of buildings built after December 1, 1990. . . .
. . . Rule 201.10 from the grid applicable to sedentary RFC directs a conclusion of disabled, whereas Rule 202.11 . . . The ALJ applied Rule 202.11 to arrive at his conclusion that Martin was not disabled. . . . limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rule 202.11 . . .
. . . . § 202.11(c)(4). . . . . § 202.11(c)(2). It is difficult to square Oravec’s novel theory with the controlling regulations. . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 202.11[5] (3d ed. 1997) (“An order denying a motion to remand . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(2). . . .
. . . under which a claimant in Mann’s position and limited to sedentary work is disabled; and grid rule 202.11 . . . Accordingly, we must uphold the agency’s decision as proper in its reliance on grid rule 202.11 as a . . .
. . . Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 185 (5th Cir.1990) (and decisions cited therein); 19 Moore’s Federal Practice § 202.11 . . .
. . . P, App. 2, Sections 202.11 and 202.18 as a framework, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff was not disabled . . .
. . . Pursuant to Rule 202.11 of Table 2 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, a claimant possessing these . . . The administrative law judge therefore determined that Rule 202.11 applied to Johnson, thereby compelling . . . Johnson argues that the administrative law judge should have applied Rule 202.09 instead of Rule 202.11 . . . Because the record demonstrates that Johnson meets all the criteria listed in Rule 202.11, we find no . . .
. . . . § 202.11. . . .
. . . therefore reached within the framework of Medical-Vocational Rule[s] 202.17, 202.18, 202.19, 202.10, 202.11 . . . perform the full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rule[s] 202.17, 202.18, 202.19, 202.10, 202.11 . . . the only Grid Rules that are suitable as a framework for decision-making are Rules 202.09, 202.10, 202.11 . . .
. . . See 12 Moore’s §§ 59.32[1], 59.53[1]; 19 Moobe’s § 202.11[1][a], Unfortunately, it is not always clear . . .
. . . . § 202.11(c)(4). . . .
. . . limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using MedicalYocational Rule 202.11 . . .
. . . P, App. 2, rule 202.11 (the grids) as a framework, the ALJ concluded that appellant was not disabled . . .
. . . The issue is critical because Rule 202.11 of the Medical Vocational Guidelines (the “grids”), 20 C.F.R . . .
. . . to produce evidence that Luna could perform any job categorized as light work, the use of grid rule 202.11 . . .
. . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rule 202.11, Table . . . summary judgment, plaintiff first argues that the ALJ erred in finding she was not disabled based on Rule 202.11 . . . The ALJ determined, based on Rule 202.11 of the grids, that the plaintiff, being a person closely approaching . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 202.11[6], at 202-56 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) . . .
. . . The ALJ, using the VE’s testimony and Rule 202.11 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, determined Williams . . .
. . . that Plaintiff could perform a full range of light work to allow a “not disabled” finding under Rule 202.11 . . .
. . . See Rule 202.11. Finally, Mr. . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 202.11[2] [c]. . . .
. . . that he was allowed a sit/stand option and customary breaks and meal periods; and that applying Rule 202.11 . . .
. . . . § 202.00, Rules 202.10 & 202.11, or medium work, see 20 C.F.R. § 203.00, Rule 203.19. . . .
. . . age, educational background, and work experience, Sections 404.1569 and 416.969 and Rules 202.10 and 202.11 . . .
. . . The ALJ’s decision states that “using medical-vocational ‘grid’ rule 202.11, Table 1, Subpart P, Appendix . . .
. . . . § 202.11(d)(3), architectural works that “were constructed or otherwise published before December 1 . . . It is possible to read “constructed” in 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(d)(3) to mean either what the plaintiff or . . . the following reasons, we believe that the better reading of the word “constructed” in 37 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . . works that were “constructed or otherwise published” from the protections of the AWC-PA. 37 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . .
. . . education), and a third set of rules analogous to the rules at issue in Sil-veira’s case (Rules 202.09 and 202.11 . . .
. . . . § 202.11(b)(4) ("Where dual copyright claims exist in technical drawings and the architectural work . . .
. . . Section 202.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations governs the registration of architectural plans and . . . 1990, or the buildings were constructed or otherwise published before December 1,1990. 37 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . . C.F.R. § 202.11(c)(2). . . . See 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(c)(2). (1998). . . . Pursuant to Regulation § 202.11(d), buildings constructed or plans otherwise published before December . . .
. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 202.11[3] (3d Ed.1998). . . .
. . . . § 202.11(c)(4). . . . respect to the technical drawings and architectural work must be registered separately. 37 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . . constitute publication for purposes of registration unless multiple copies are constructed. 37 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . .
. . . . § 202.11(b)(2) (1997). . . . . § 202.11(d)(1) (1997). . . .
. . . The first ALJ held that Rules 202.11 and 202.12 of the Medical Vocational Guidelines (Grid), 20 C.F.R . . . Rule 202.11 provides that an individual closely approaching advanced age with a limited education and . . .
. . . capacity for light work, and the claimant’s age, education, work experience, section 404.1569 and Rule 202.11 . . .
. . . Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 202.11, at 51 (footnotes omitted). See, Makos, 64 So.2d at 673. . . .
. . . . § 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Rules 202.11 & 202.12. . . .
. . . Moreover, the argument that N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-202.11 is pre-emptive centers almost completely upon the . . . N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-202.11, “Restrictions as to adult establishments,” reads in pertinent part: No person . . . N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-202.12 establishes that first-time violations of N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-202.11 constitute . . . First, if N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-202.11 can be said to regulate conduct at all (and it clearly does not), . . . This Court shares the Fourth Circuit’s doubts as to the efficacy of N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-202.11. . . .
. . . Accordingly, taking into consideration Cunningham’s RFC, age, and education, the Secretary applied Rule 202.11 . . .
. . . ALJ concluded that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy and pursuant to Rule 202.11 . . .
. . . Pursuant to Rule 202.11 of Appendix 2, the ALJ found plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 18-19). IV. . . .
. . . prior work experience, the Grid would still direct a finding of “not disabled” under Rules 202.10 or 202.11 . . . P, App. 2, §§ 202.10; 202.11. . . .
. . . Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 202.11, at 51-52 (1994 ed.); see also Forbes v. Bushnell Steel Constr. . . .
. . . Regulation § 202.11(d) provides as follows: (D) Works Excluded. . . . December 1, 1990, to constitute “construction,” thus excluding the structure as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . .
. . . Rule 202.11 in Table No. 2 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, in conjunction with Regulation . . .
. . . If the claimant were limited to no more than the full range of light work, Rule 202.11, Table No. 2 would . . .
. . . work, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, section 404.1569 and Rule 202.10 and 202.11 . . .
. . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rules 202.10 and 202.11, Table No. 2 of Appendix 2, Subpart . . .
. . . the difference between being disabled under Rules 202.01 or 202.02 or being not disabled under Rules 202.11 . . .
. . . . § 202.11(a)(1), 32 C.F.R. § 297.5(a)(2) and DoD Directive 5400.7-R. . . . enterprise publication will be made available equally to any other publisher who requests it." 32 C.F.R. § 202.11 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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. . . .
. . . Appendix 2, Table No. 2, Rule 202.11. (Tr. at 18). . . .
. . . See Rule 202.11. . . .
. . . .-10 and 202.11 of Table No. 2, 20 C.F.R., Appendix 2, to reach the conclusion that Paulson was “not . . . The AU applied Rules 202.10 and 202.11 of Table No. 2, 20 C.F.R., App. 2, to reach the conclusion that . . . the erroneous finding that Paulson could perform “light” work, the AU applied Grid Rules 202.10 and 202.11 . . . Grid Rules 202.10, 202.11, and 202.12 each direct a finding of “not disabled,” irrespective of the level . . .
. . . P, app. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.11, and Table 2, Rules 202.11, 202.12. C. . . . P., app. 2, Table 2, Rules 202.11, 202.12. . . .
. . . Compare 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, App. 2, §§ 201.10 and 201.14 (1984) with 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, App. 2, §§ 202.11 . . .
. . . It therefore applied Grid Rules 202.02 and 202.11 of Table No. 2 and concluded that Taylor was not disabled . . .