Beeler v. Berryhill
District Court, S.D. Indiana
1Opinion of the Court
The Totalization Agreement does not, however, designate as covered employment, or recognize as equivalent to covered employment, paid work in both countries, plainly or otherwise. Plaintiffs do not, because they cannot, point to specific language in the Totalization Agreement to that express effect. Plaintiffs rather point to the structure and purpose of the Totalization Agreement as a whole, indeed to the structure and purpose of any totalization agreement. See Pls.' Reply Br. 5 ("[S]uch agreements [i.e. , totalization agreements] plainly designate 'employment' to cover all periods of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Auer v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- United States v. John Allan CrawleyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
- Erlich v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Rabanal v. ColvinDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2013
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Langenbach v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2021