20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

At the step-three point where impairments do not meet or equal a listing, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from all relevant medical and other record evidence, and that assessment is used at steps four and five.

Saez v. Colvin · filed 2016-10-24(e)

If the impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ makes a finding about the claimant’s residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical evidence and other evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity before proceeding to step four and to consider the relevant evidence in making that determination.

Dillon v. Colvin · filed 2016-09-26(e)

Before considering step four of the evaluation process, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 CFR § 404.1520(e). RFC is a claimant’s ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite any limitations from his impairments. 20 CFR § 404.1545(a)(1). In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including those which are not severe. 20 CFR § 404.1545(e). All of the relevant medical and non-medical evidence in the record must be considered. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(e) and 404.1545. ... The ALJ did not complete a proper analysis of Mr. Dillon’s RFC at step four.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Roberson v. Linda McMahon, etc. · filed 2007-04-02(e)

Before determining whether Ms. Roberson was able to return to her past work, the ALJ was required to determine her RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an individualized assessment of each claimant's residual functional capacity before deciding whether the claimant can perform prior work.

City of New York v. Heckler · filed 1984-08-27(e)

If the residual functional capacity is consistent with prior employment, benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... The procedural irregularity challenged in this litigation concerns the fourth step of the sequential evaluation process—the determination of residual functional capacity. In disregard of the regulatory requirement to conduct an individualized assessment of the residual functional capacity of each claimant, SSA, informally and without public disclosure, adopted an administrative practice that effectively imposed a presumption upon the determination of eligibility for DI benefits: Claimants whose mental impairments were not as severe as those in the Listing of Impairments were presumed to retain a residual functional capacity sufficient to perform at least unskilled work.

Section 404.1520(f) permits the required residual-functional-capacity determinations and supporting reasoning to appear throughout the administrative law judge's opinion, rather than requiring a separate specific finding in one designated section.

Roger WAITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appell · filed 1987-06-01(f)

Waite avers that the Secretary erred in determining whether he could do other work despite his limitations because the AU failed to make a specific finding of his residual functional capacity, in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... We examine the AU’s opinion as a whole to ascertain whether he considered all of the relevant evidence, made the required determinations, and gave supporting reasons for his decisions. ... An AU may recite his determinations and supporting reasoning in either the findings or the discussion section of his opinion. ... Here, the AU discussed Waite’s residual functional capacity at length in his opinion, specifically noting the extent of Waite’s “residual permanent injury of a total loss of motor and sensory function of his non-dominant left upper extremity.” ... This is sufficient consideration of Waite's residual functional capacity, or what work Waite can do despite his limitations. Id.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the adjudicator to consider a claimant’s residual functional capacity and whether the claimant can still perform the type of employment performed in the past.

Virgil A. HALL, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appelle · filed 1988-09-27(e)

The Secretary’s regulations require the AU to consider a claimant’s residual functional capacity and whether he can still perform the type of employment he has performed in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity and denying benefits when the claimant can perform prior work.

Smith v. Shalala · filed 1994-02-17(e)

Pursuant to the sequential evaluation process established by the Social Security regulations, if a claimant’s impairments are not listed in the “Listing of Impairments” contained in the Appendix of the regulations, the Secretary must assess the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” (“RPC”); that is, the claimant’s capacity to engage in basic work activities. If the claimant’s RFC permits him to engage in his prior work, benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the claimant’s residual functional capacity to be determined at step four, and subsection (f) carries that RFC finding forward with other factors at step five to assess ability to perform other work.

Jones v. Apfel · filed 2000-01-04(e), (f)

The claimant’s RFC is determined once, in detail, at step four. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); Social Security Ruling 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at *2, *5-*9; Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5-*7; Social Security Ruling 86-8, 1986 WL 68636, at *4; see also Winfrey v. Chater , 92 F.3d 1017, 1023 (10th Cir. 1996). If the evaluation of the claim proceeds to step five, the same RFC finding is considered along with other factors to determine whether the claimant can perform work other than his or her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Social Security Ruling 86-8, 1986 WL 68636, at *7.

At the fourth step of the disability evaluation, § 404.1520(f) requires assessing residual functional capacity and determining whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Wilson v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2002-03-06(f)

Since we have already determined that Wilson does not have an impairment which meets or equals those contained in the Listings and that Wilson has not had a continuous disability, the next inquiry is whether the claimant has an impairment which prevents his past relevant work. This step assesses the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” and measures whether a claimant can perform past relevant work despite his or her impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); see also Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 1997).

Subsection (e) requires assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity after step three when the impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment.

Jones v. Barnhart · filed 2003-01-10(e)

If his condition had met the equivalency requirement, there would have been no need to measure his RFC. That procedure is only required when the claimant's condition is determined in step three not to meet or equal a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant's residual functional capacity before determining whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Depover v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2003-11-14(e)

To reach his decision, the ALJ was required to assess Mr. Depover's RFC, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), which is defined as "the most [a claimant] can still do despite" his or her "physical or mental limitations," see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1520 uses a five-step sequence, with step four addressing past relevant work and step five addressing other work based on residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Butler, Joan S. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2004-01-13(e)

The ALJ’s RFC assessment bears on Butler’s ability to perform past relevant work (step four) and her ability to do ‘‘other work’’ (step five). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e)-(f), 416.920(e)-(f); id. §§ 404.1545(a)(5)(i)-(ii), 416.945(a)(5)(i)-(ii). It is designed to determine the claimant’s uppermost ability to perform regular and continuous work-related physical and mental activities in a work environment.

Section 404.1520(e) directs the Commissioner to use a claimant’s residual functional capacity at steps four and five to assess past relevant work and adjustment to other work.

Perez v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-01(e)

The claimant’s RFC is used at both steps four and five of the sequential analysis: at the fourth step to determine if the claimant can still do his past relevant work, and at the fifth step to determine whether the claimant can adjust to any other type of work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) places assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity at step four of the sequential evaluation.

RICKERTSEN v. Barnhart · filed 2005-08-12(a)(4)(iv)

The Court is also aware that the regulations regarding the assessment of residual functional capacity were revised on August 26, 2003. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) states that the Commissioner’s assessment of the claimant’s residual functional is assessed at step four of the sequential evaluation.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s RFC using all relevant medical and other evidence to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or adjust to other work.

Humphries v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-08(e)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act, the ALJ is required to include an assessment of the claimant’s RFC to determine whether the claimant can do her past relevant work or can make an adjustment to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The RFC assessment is based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in the case record. Id.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence to determine whether the claimant can perform past work or adjust to other work.

Fries v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2006-09-14(e)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act, the ALJ is required to make several findings under a five-step sequential evaluation process, including an assessment of the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” (“RFC”) to determine whether the claimant can do her past relevant work or can make an adjustment to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The RFC assessment is based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in the case record. Id.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity after determining that the claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, and that assessment is used at steps four and five.

Perbeck v. Astrue · filed 2007-05-17(e)

If plaintiffs impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the Commissioner assesses claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). This assessment is used at both step four and step five of the process.

Section 404.1520 requires the claimant's residual functional capacity to be assessed between steps three and four and then used at both steps four and five.

Lingenfelter v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-04(4)

Before we go from step three to step four, we assess your residual functional capacity. . . . We use this residual functional capacity assessment at both step four and step five when we evaluate your claim at these steps.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before step four and to consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including nonsevere impairments, in making that determination.

Rapp v. Astrue · filed 2009-11-04(e)

Before considering step four of the evaluation process above — whether the claimant can perform past relevant work — the ALJ must first determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (20 CFR §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e)). An individual’s residual functional capacity is her ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from her impairments. In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe (20 CFR §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545, 416.920(e), and 416.945; SSR 96-8p).

Subsection (e) requires the SSA to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity after the claimant does not meet or equal a listed impairment, for use at steps four and five.

Rosado v. Astrue · filed 2010-05-20(e)

The new § 404.1520(e) explains that if the claimant has an impairment that does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the SSA will assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The SSA uses the residual functional capacity assessment at step four to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and, if necessary, at step five to determine whether the claimant can do any work. ... The ALJ appropriately utilized the residual functional capacity assessment amendments in this case.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity after step three and before step four of the sequential evaluation.

Young v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-25(e)

After step three and before proceeding to step four of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ was mandated to ascertain Claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity based on the sustained work-related activities the claimant can perform on a regular and continuing basis despite the claimant’s limitations.

Feskens v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-08(e)

If the Commissioner proceeds beyond Step Three, he must assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). The claimant’s RFC is an assessment of the sustained, work-related physical and mental activities the claimant can still do on a regular and continuing basis despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity before steps four and five and use it to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or adjust to other work.

Borrego v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-04(e)

Before considering the fourth and fifth steps, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). ... “The claimant’s RFC is used at both steps four and five of the sequential analysis: at the fourth step to determine if the claimant can still do his [or her] past relevant work, and at the fifth step to determine whether the claimant can adjust to any other type of work.”

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity before the fourth step and use that assessment at the fourth and fifth steps.

Lehman v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-22(a)(4), (e)

Before an ALJ advances to the fourth step, he must assess plaintiffs “residual functional capacity” (“RFC”), which is then used at the fourth and fifth steps. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), (e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the decision maker to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before proceeding to step four.

Henderson v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr · filed 2013-03-26(e)

Before considering step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must first determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). An individual’s residual functional capacity is her ability to do physical and mental work activities despite limitations from impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545. The ALJ spent approximately five pages detailing his findings about her residual functional capacity, relying in part on testimony of medical experts, including Dr. Hopson, Dr. Kaber, and at least six others. Medical expert Dr. Sowell testified that Henderson had a residual functional capacity for medium-level work.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before proceeding to step four of the disability analysis.

Douglass v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-04-09(a)(4)(iv)

Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity before Step Four of the disability analysis.

Hall v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-04-13(a)(4)(iv)

Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before deciding at Step Four whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Manuel v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-04-19(a)(4)(iv)

Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before Step Four of the disability analysis.

Gulley v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-04-23(a)(4)(iv)

Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess and make a finding about a claimant’s residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; the court upheld the RFC assessment as adequately addressing the claimant’s limitations.

Hooks v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-29(e)

Moreover, the ALJ will “assess and make a finding about [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence” in the case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... Although the ALJ may not have articulated precise findings regarding appropriate response to customary work pressures, interactions with supervisors, dealing with change in the work place, or ability to maintain concentration, persistence, or pace, he did address these limitation generally. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s first claim of error is meritless.

Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity while considering all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Shered v. Colvin · filed 2018-04-27(e)

Quite simply, the ALJ made a determination that the Plaintiff had the non-severe medical impairment of depression at step two, but then failed to discuss this impairment when determining the Plaintiff’s RFC in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) and § 404.1545 and SSR 96-8p.

After a claimant's impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment at step three, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess the claimant's residual functional capacity.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-08-20(e)

If a claimant’s severe impairments neither meet nor equal the severity of a listed impairment, as was the undisputed step-three determination in this case, the ALJ must then assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”).4 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Nichols v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2019-02-07(a)(4)(iv)

Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). This RFC determination must be based on medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace. See Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work, while subsection (e) requires the residual functional capacity to be based on all relevant medical and other evidence and used at steps four and five.

Vidrine v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-25(a)(4)(iv), (e)

At Step Four, the ALJ must assess: (1) the claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”); and (2) the claimant's ability to return to her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). As for the claimant's RFC, the regulations define RFC as that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). Moreover, the ALJ will “assess and make a finding about [the claimant's] residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence” in the case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the Commissioner to consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Morse v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-07-15(e)

Plaintiff’s argument conflates the regulatory requirement that an ALJ consider all impairments when assessing RFC with a non-existent requirement to discuss “not severe” impairments when assessing RFC. The ALJ noted the requirement that in assessing RFC he must “consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe.” (R. 837, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 404.1545; SSR 96-8p).

Section 404.1520(e) requires assessing whether a claimant whose impairment does not establish disability at an earlier step retains enough residual functional capacity to perform past or other work.

Walter WOODY, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES · filed 1988-10-21(e)

Second, he can introduce evidence that even if he does not suffer from a “listed” impairment, his “residual functional capacity” resulting from his impairment prevents him from engaging in his past work or any other work. ... If the Form does not dictate a conclusion of disability, the Secretary’s regulations call for a determination of whether the alleged mental disorder has left the claimant with sufficient residual functional capacity to perform his or her former work or other work in the economy.

At step two, an impairment is severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, and a severe impairment’s work-related limitations must be reflected in the residual functional capacity.

Rodriguez v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-09-11(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers and identifies the claimant’s severe impairments, defined as those impairments that significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 415.920(c). ... If an impairment is found severe, by definition it causes some limitations on the individual’s ability to perform work activities, and thus must be accounted for in the RFC. If the ALJ determined Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome caused no functional limitations, then she should have found it to be a non-severe impairment.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) and (e) places assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity between steps three and four of the disability evaluation and requires it to be based on the relevant evidence in the record.

Dillinger v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-27(a)(4), (e)

A claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is assessed between steps three and four and is “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in your case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), -(e) and 416.920(a)(4), -(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires assessment of a claimant's residual functional capacity before steps four and five, and the RFC is used to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or adjust to other work.

Stallings v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-30(e)

Before considering the fourth and fifth steps, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is, in layman’s terms, her maximum work capability. Id. at 461-62; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a). “The claimant’s RFC is used at both steps four and five of the sequential analysis: at the fourth step to determine if the claimant can still do his [or her] past relevant work, and at the fifth step to determine whether the claimant can adjust to any other type of work.”

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence before proceeding to the next step.

Bryant v. Social Security · filed 2019-11-01(e)

The ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... The ALJ complied with the regulations by: (1) recognizing that Bryant’s symptoms may not be fully supported by objective medical evidence; (2) considering all of her impairments – including her fibromyalgia – in light of the medical and other evidence in the record; and (3) clearly explaining that she rejected Bryant’s subjective symptom complaints because her testimony concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms was not consistent with her daily activities, the conservative treatment she sought and the medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1529(c)(3), 416.920(e), 416.929(c)(3); SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5; SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4; SSR 02-1p, 2002 LESIS 1 at *18; Felisky, 35 F.3d at 1036; (Tr. 17-19).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity after step three and use that assessment at steps four and five.

Low v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-11-07(e)

After evaluating step three, the Commissioner assesses claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). This assessment is used at both step four and step five of the sequential evaluation process. Id.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ, when assessing residual functional capacity, to consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2019-12-05(e)

In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are non-severe. ... This court finds that this RFC determination of light work was improperly assessed by excluding limitations regarding plaintiff’s digestive, bladder, and bowel issues. ... Since the ALJ did not properly consider the entire record or sufficiently explain in his decision the weight afforded to each source, this matter should be remanded with instructions to reassess plaintiff’s RFC based on the excluded limitations established above.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ at step four to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

Gora v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-17(e)

At Step Four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before proceeding to step four of the disability analysis.

Neighbors v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-01-22(a)(4)(iv)

Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe at step two when it significantly limits basic work abilities, and § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to consider all resulting limitations in formulating the RFC, including limitations from non-severe impairments.

McCaslin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-31(c), (e)

At step two, the “medical severity” of a claimant’s impairments is considered. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is not considered to be “severe” if it does not “significantly limit” a claimant's mental or physical abilities to do basic work activities. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). A plaintiff has the burden to show (1) he has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments; (2) the impairment or combination of impairments is severe; and (3) the impairment lasted at least 12 months. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146, (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... The Court agrees the ALJ should have found vertigo and migraines to be severe impairments at step two, based on substantial evidence. ... The ALJ must consider all limitations and restrictions when formulating the RFC, even those stemming from impairments that are not “severe.” See Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d at 1049; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... The ALJ erred by failing to consider the limitations imposed by plaintiff’s vertigo and migraines in formulating plaintiff’s RFC. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s failure to include vertigo and headaches among plaintiff’s severe impairments and failure to include the limitations associated with these conditions was harmful error.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant's residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence when deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Wilson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(e)

In determining whether [a claimant] can return to her past relevant work, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC using all relevant medical and other evidence in the case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At the RFC stage before step four, the Commissioner must base the claimant’s residual functional capacity on all relevant medical and other evidence, not only formal medical opinions.

Gonzalez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-25(a)(4), (e)

It is well-established that ALJs are required to consider all relevant medical evidence, not just certain medical opinions, in assessing the residual functional capacity. See Greek, 802 F.3d at 374 n.2 (“The Commissioner determines the claimant’s ‘residual functional capacity’ based on “all the relevant medical and other evidence of record.’”) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), (e), 404.1545(a)).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity.

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(e)

In rendering his RFC findings, the ALJ must consider “‘all the relevant medical and other evidence’ in the case.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e)).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequence to evaluate disability, and § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ at step four to determine residual functional capacity from all relevant medical and other evidence.

Avery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-14(a)(4)(i) (e)

The Social Security regulations outline a five-step process the ALJ must use to determine whether a claimant is entitled to benefits: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) if so, whether that impairment, or combination of impairments, meets or equals any of the listings in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) if not, whether the claimant can perform her past relevant work in light of her RFC; and (5) if not, whether, based on the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, she can perform other work found in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v); ... At Step Four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity before proceeding to steps four and five of the sequential disability evaluation.

April J. v. Saul · filed 2020-05-19(e)

Before proceeding to steps four and five, an ALJ must first assess the claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ, at step four, to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity by considering all relevant evidence.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-01(e)

At Step Four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... In deciding Thompson’s RFC, the ALJ was required to consider all the evidence in the record in accordance with the agency’s regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... The ALJ followed the proper legal procedures and reasonably drew his factual findings from the evidence in the record.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity.

McGrath v. Commissioner of the Social Security · filed 2020-07-14(e)

Therefore, in assessing Plaintiff’s RFC the ALJ must consider the medical opinions in conjunction with all the other evidence of record and must consider all the medically determinable impairments, including impairments that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); see Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1987) (stating that the “ALJ must consider the applicant’s medical condition taken as a whole”).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

DeBose v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(e)

An ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... It appears that the ALJ complied with these regulations.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to use a five-step disability sequence and, at step four, determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity from all relevant medical and other evidence.

Winner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-13(a)(4)(i), (e)

At Step Four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... Here, the ALJ complied with the regulations by expressly considering all of the evidence and all of Winner’s symptoms in evaluating his mental RFC; and he discussed Winner’s hearing testimony (including testimony that he had periodic panic attacks during which he called off work and became “loud and uncontrollable), exhaustively reviewing the medical records, and addressing and weighing each of the medical opinions. (Tr. 20-24); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1529(a); SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity after step three and before deciding at step four whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Dokes v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-26(e)

After step three of the ALJ’s sequential analysis, but before deciding whether a claimant can perform past relevant work at step four, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e)-(f), 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity based on all relevant evidence of the claimant’s limitations.

Quaraish v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-09(e)

A claimant’s RFC is the most a claimant can still do despite his limitations and is assessed based on an evaluation of the all relevant evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.945(a)(1), (a)(3); SSR 96-8p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,474-01 (July 2, 1996).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the Commissioner to assess residual functional capacity after step three and use that assessment at steps four and five.

Wyrick v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-10-06(e)

After evaluating step three, the Commissioner assesses claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). This assessment is used at both step four and step five of the sequential evaluation process. Id.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity before proceeding to steps four and five of the sequential evaluation.

Sahra M. v. Saul · filed 2020-10-08(e)

Before proceeding to steps four and five, an ALJ must first assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8P at *1.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity from the medical and other relevant evidence after the claimant is not found disabled at step three.

Wandick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-25(e)

Step three and RFC determinations serve different functions, address different issues, and involve separate findings. If the claimant does not meet or equal the requirements of a Listed Impariment and is not found disabled at step three, the Commissioner must then assess the medical and other relevant evidence to determine the claimant’s RFC to perform work-related activities, despite the limitations imposed by his severe impairment or combination of impairments. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e); Social Security Ruling 96–8p, 1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996); see also Keith K. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 2019 WL 4889095 at * 3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 3, 2019).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the adjudicator to assess residual functional capacity from all relevant medical and other evidence; it does not require a supporting medical opinion.

Dickerson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-22(e)

As an initial matter, Plaintiff's argument that the ALJ must base his RFC finding on a medical opinion, is unsupported. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e) (“we will assess the residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in your case record”) (emphasis added), §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3) (the adjudicator will assess the RFC based on all the relevant evidence in the case record); ... Monroe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec, 676 F. App’x. 5, 9 (2d Cir. 2017) (finding that the ALJ could rely on treatment notes and activities of daily to formulate the RFC assessment, and rejecting the argument that a medical opinion was required); Johnson v. Colvin, 669 Fed. App’x 44, 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (explaining that an ALJ looks to “all of the relevant medical and other evidence’ including relevant medical reports, medical history, and statements from the claimant when assessing an applicant’s RFC).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity from all relevant medical and other evidence in the case record.

Duron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(e)

The ALJ determines the RFC “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant's residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence in the case record.

Larson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(e)

The ALJ determines the RFC “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) makes impairment severity the subject of the ALJ’s step-two inquiry under a de minimis threshold, while § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) assigns the ALJ responsibility for assessing residual functional capacity from the record as a whole.

Crochet v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-26(a)(4), (a)(4)(iv)

The Social Security regulations, rulings, and Sixth Circuit precedent provide that the ALJ is charged with the final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity. See e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (the final responsibility for deciding the residual functional capacity “is reserved to the Commissioner.”). Moreover, the Social Security Act and agency regulations require an ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity based on the evidence as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(B); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) (“the administrative law judge . . . is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity”). ... At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation process, an ALJ considers the “medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairments.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... The Sixth Circuit has construed step two as a “de minimis hurdle.” Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860, 862 (6th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Under this approach, “an impairment can be considered not severe only if it is a slight abnormality that minimally affects work ability regardless of age, education, and experience.” Id. (citation omitted).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) places the residual-functional-capacity assessment between the third and fourth steps of the sequential disability evaluation.

Hall v. SSA · filed 2021-05-26(a)(4)

The real question before this Court is whether the ALJ’s RFC finding was reasonable. A claimant’s RFC is assessed by the ALJ between steps three and four and is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his] impairments.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 404.1545(a)(1),(5).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ, when an impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, to determine the claimant's residual functional capacity from all relevant medical and other evidence in the record.

Hale v. Saul · filed 2021-06-09(e)

When an individual's impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ will "make a finding [of the individual's] residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). An individual's RFC is the most an individual can still do despite his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

At the residual-functional-capacity stage, the ALJ evaluates all relevant medical and other evidence, and a medical opinion or newer opinion is not necessarily required when the record is sufficient.

Howard, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-09(e)

A claimant’s RFC is the most he can still do despite his limitations and is assessed based on an evaluation of all relevant evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.945(a)(1), (a)(3); SSR 96-8p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,474-01 (July 2, 1996). ... As discussed above, a medical opinion is not required to support an RFC finding, nor is a more recent opinion required where, as here, the later-submitted evidence does not show that Plaintiff was more restricted than found by the ALJ.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ, when assessing residual functional capacity, to consider all symptoms and their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects in light of the claimant’s testimony, objective medical evidence, and opinion evidence.

Charvat v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-17(e)

The ALJ applied proper legal standards in assessing Charvat’s RFC. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241. In determining what limitations to include in the RFC, the ALJ complied with the regulations by “consider[ing] all symptoms” and assessing “the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of those symptoms in light of Charvat’s testimony, objective medical evidence, and opinion evidence. (Tr. 23-25); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The ALJ specifically: (1) addressed Charvat’s testimony and other evidence concerning fatigue, panic attacks, migraines, and pain, (Tr. 23-25); and (2) explained that the evidence in the record (including treatment notes reporting normal psychological findings, normal concentration, and cooperative behavior) demonstrated that she could understand and carry out simple/repetitive instructions and maintain an ordinary routine in a setting without frequent changes, (Tr. 25). And that’s all the regulations required. SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5.

At Step Four, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine the claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

Russ v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-20(e)

At Step Four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ determining disability to establish the claimant’s residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence and determining whether the claimant can perform available work despite her impairments.

Kinnebrew v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-26(e)

To make a disability determination, an ALJ must first arrive at an RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence and determining whether a claimant is able to perform work available in the national economy, despite her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ, before proceeding to step four, to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence and to account for limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Dulude v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-03(e)

Prior to step four, the ALJ must assess Plaintiff’s RFC, which is the most she can do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... An ALJ will “assess and make a finding about [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence” in the case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a)(1), (3). So, the ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not “severe.”

After finding that a claimant does not meet or equal a listed condition at step three, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Izzard v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-09-13(e)

If a claimant does not meet or equal one of the conditions listed in the step 3 analysis, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). This step requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s ability to perform sustained work given any restrictions resulting from all impairments, including the non-severe impairments that the ALJ identified in step 2. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) places the residual-functional-capacity determination before steps four and five of the sequential disability evaluation.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-13(a)(4)(iv)

Before Steps Four and Five of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity before proceeding to step four.

Cascio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-23(e)

Before step four, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity, which is the most a claimant can still do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). It consists of a claimant’s “impairment(s), and any related symptoms, such as pain, [that] may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what [a claimant] can do in a work setting.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). An ALJ will “assess and make a finding about [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence” in the case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a)(1), (3). So, the ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2); Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1268 (11th Cir. 2019).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the agency to assess and make a finding about a claimant’s residual functional capacity based on all relevant medical evidence when the impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment.

ANDERSON v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-11-24(e)

If a claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the Agency will assess and make a finding about a claimant’s RFC “based on all the relevant medical evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At step four, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-12(e)

At Step Four, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the residual functional capacity assessment to account for all of a claimant’s impairments, including nonsevere impairments and impairments that do not meet a listed impairment.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-09(e)

The RFC must account for all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe or fail to meet a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e), 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2); SSR 96-8P, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,474, 34,475 (July 2, 1996). ... On the facts presented here, the court finds that the ALJ erred when he omitted from his RFC assessment a limitation that reflects his finding of Plaintiff’s mild mental impairments and failed to state why any such limitation is not necessary.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity even when state-agency doctors have found the claimant not disabled.

Spivey v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-24(e)

However, this does not relieve the ALJ of the obligation to determine Plaintiff’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(e) authorizes and directs the ALJ to formulate a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Dieker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21(e)

Dieker argues that the ALJ is not competent to formulate an RFC. The regulations authorized and directed the ALJ to make an RFC determination. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 404.1545. The ALJ did not err by following those regulations.

At the residual-functional-capacity stage, an ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe.

Black v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-23(e)

An RFC must reflect the claimant’s ability to do physical and mental work on a sustained basis despite limitations caused by her impairments. When determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 404.1545. The ALJ considered the limitations caused by Ms. Black’s Type 1 diabetes. The ALJ acknowledged the symptoms which Ms. Black contends the ALJ overlooked, and the ALJ concluded that the evidence does not support the limitations that Ms. Black attributes to those symptoms.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments when establishing a claimant's residual functional capacity.

DANIELS v. SAUL · filed 2022-04-29(e)

An ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments when establishing the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant's mental-health limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Charlier v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-01(e)

‘First, I agree with Charlier that the ALJ had to consider her mental health limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At Step Four, § 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

Sellards v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-08(e)

At Step Four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. ... The ALJ complied with the regulations by: (i) assessing Sellards’s RFC in light of the medical evidence, her testimony, and other evidence in the record; and (ii) clearly explaining that he rejected Sellards’s subjective symptom complaints because her statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not consistent with the objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, at *3-4, 11-12, 15; SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5, at *13-15; (Tr. 21-25).

At Step Four, the regulation requires the ALJ to determine the claimant’s RFC after considering all medical and other evidence in the record.

Keller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-27(e)

At Step Four of the sequential analysis laid out in the regulations, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC after considering all the medical and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to assess and make a finding about a claimant’s residual functional capacity based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Finley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-01(e)

An ALJ must “assess and make a finding about [the claimant’s] [RFC] based on all the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to assess and make a finding about a claimant’s residual functional capacity based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Guth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-09(e)

An ALJ must “assess and make a finding about [the claimant’s RFC] based on all the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to base the residual functional capacity assessment on all relevant evidence in the case record.

Mielbeck v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-16(e)

This assessment must be based on all relevant evidence in the record before the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before proceeding to Step Four.

McCauley v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-01-19(a)(4)(iv)

Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Sections 404.1520(e)–(g) require the ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity and determine what work the claimant can perform despite the claimant’s limitations.

Cimachowski v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-07(e), (f), and (g)

The ALJ must determine whether the claimant maintains “residual functional capacity” to work, and what type of work his residual functional capacity allows him to do. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & 404.1520(f). Residual functional capacity is an assessment of the individual’s physical and mental work abilities, or “what the individual can do despite his or her limitations.” Davila v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 993 F.Supp.2d 737, 753 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 2014); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

Under § 404.1520’s sequential process, step-three mental-limitations findings must be reflected and reconciled in the step-four residual-functional-capacity assessment; a moderate limitation cannot be treated as meaningless.

Hawkins v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-16(a)(4)(iii), (e)

At step three, the ALJ determines the severity of the claimant’s impairments to determine whether her symptoms meet or equal the criteria for an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... While acknowledging their differences, the analytical similarities and overlap of evidence considered at these steps require their findings to be consistent even if they are not identical. A “moderate” limitation at step three cannot be meaningless for that capacity at step four. See Haga, 482 F.3d at 1208.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before evaluating whether the claimant can perform past relevant work at step four.

Jacobs v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-03-30(a)(4)(iv)

Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ, when assessing residual functional capacity, to consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, and the total limiting effects of each.

Padilla v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-25(e)

In rendering the RFC, therefore, the ALJ must consider the medical opinions in conjunction with all the other evidence of record ... and will consider all the medically determinable impairments, including impairments that are not severe, and the total limiting effects of each.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ, when assessing residual functional capacity, to consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, and the total limiting effects of each.

Vazquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-26(e)

In rendering the RFC, therefore, the ALJ must consider the medical opinions in conjunction with all the other evidence of record and will consider all the medically determinable impairments, including impairments that are not severe, and the total limiting effects of each.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence, including medical-opinion evidence.

Layne v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-07-27(e)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity by considering all impairments, including non-severe impairments, and to incorporate all credited limitations into the RFC.

Erb v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-09(e)

The RFC reflects a claimant’s ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from his impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). To determine this, the ALJ must consider all impairments, including those that are not considered severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 1520(e), 404.1545, 416.920(e), and 416.945; SSR 96-8p. ... Because the ALJ credited the opinions of the state agency psychologists that Plaintiff was limited to brief and routine encounters, the ALJ was required to incorporate those limitations into Plaintiff’s RFC. The ALJ’s limitation to “occasional” social interactions does not specify whether these occasional interactions can be lengthy or brief. This was error.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence in the record, not just medical opinions.

Laurie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-23(e)

A claimant’s RFC is the most he can still do despite his limitations and is assessed based on an evaluation of all relevant evidence in the record.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ, when formulating a claimant’s residual functional capacity, to consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Debruzzi v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-25(e)

In formulating an RFC, the ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are non-severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); see also Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184, at *5). ... Nothing in the record, including the hypotheticals the ALJ posed to the vocational expert (AR 56–60), demonstrates that the ALJ seriously considered Plaintiff’s ulcerative colitis and associated limitations in crafting the RFC. ... Because an “RFC that fails to take into account a claimant’s limitations is defective,” the Court concludes that the ALJ erred by failing to substantively consider Plaintiff’s ulcerative colitis.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments and their combined effects, when assessing residual functional capacity and work attendance.

Bobbitt v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-08-24(e)

In any event, although the ALJ stated that she “considered all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe” in assessing Bobbitt’s RFC, she did not discuss absences potentially caused by headaches combined with absences caused by seizures to determine whether Bobbitt could maintain work attendance. Since Bobbitt’s ability to maintain work attendance was clearly an issue in the case, the ALJ should have done so.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider all of the claimant's impairments, including impairments that are not severe; an express reference to SSR 96-8p, discussion of the nonsevere impairments' functional limitations, and assurance that the entire record and all symptoms were considered can establish compliance.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-20(e)

First, as in Emard, the ALJ’s decision here explicitly referenced SSR 96-8p as the ALJ stated that she “must consider all of [Plaintiff’s] impairments, including impairments that are not severe (20 CFR 404.1520(e) and 404.1545; SSR 96-8p).” ... Finally, the ALJ expressly stated that her decision stemmed from “careful consideration of the entire record” and that she “considered all symptoms.” ... Under Emard, the ALJ therefore provided a sufficient basis for the Court to conclude that she properly considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments when crafting the RFC.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to base the residual-functional-capacity assessment on all relevant medical and other evidence in the claimant's case record.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(e)

The ALJ considers impairments that are both “severe” and “not severe,” see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520 treats a severe impairment as a step-two threshold; that finding alone does not establish that a claimant cannot perform unskilled or semi-skilled work at steps four and five.

Hankins v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-27(c)–(g)

A finding that the plaintiff has a severe impairment does not prevent a finding that the plaintiff can also complete unskilled and semi-skilled work. ... After all, a “severe impairment” or a combination of impairments must be found in step two of the sequential process to progress to determining ... the plaintiff’s capabilities when performing certain types of work in steps four and five. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)–(g).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Erffmeyer v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-01(e)

The ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 404.1545; SSR 96-8p.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the residual functional capacity to be assessed from all relevant medical and other evidence in the claimant's case record.

Jennings v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-10(e)

Thus, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s treatment notes to formulate the RFC assessment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e) (“we will assess the residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in your case record”).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the residual functional capacity assessment to consider all relevant evidence about the claimant’s impairments, but step-two paragraph B severity findings do not themselves dictate RFC limitations.

Smagala v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-12(e)

In evaluating an individual’s RFC, the ALJ considers impairments that are both “severe” and “not severe”, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... In summary, while the ALJ’s determination at step 2 established that plaintiff’s alleged depression, anxiety and substance addiction were not severe impairments, it did not make any determination regarding plaintiff’s RFC. ... Based on this record, the ALJ did not err by excluding plaintiff’s step 2 “paragraph B” criteria from the step 4 RFC determination. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of error is denied.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to consider all of a claimant's impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Farell V SSA · filed 2024-03-25(e)

First, as in Emard, the ALJ’s decision here explicitly referenced SSR 96-8p as controlling his RFC finding, stating that he “must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe (20 CFR 404.1520(e) and 404.1545; SSR 96-8p).” ... Thus, under any reading of Emard, the ALJ provided a sufficient basis for the Court to conclude he properly considered all of Farrell’s impairments when crafting her RFC.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity based on all relevant medical and other evidence, including impairments that are severe and not severe.

Kelly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-25(e)

In evaluating an individual’s RFC, the ALJ considers impairments that are both “severe” and “not severe”, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... Plaintiff’s contention is without merit. The ALJ recognized that plaintiff had problems with memory and concentration (PageID.31-32) and limited him to simple, routine, repetitive work.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to determine a claimant’s RFC before step four and consider all impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Hill v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-29(e)

“Before considering step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must first determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC).” ... “In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe.”

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant's residual functional capacity before step four and to consider all impairments, regardless of severity.

Tello v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-29(e)

Prior to step four of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). At this time, the ALJ must consider all impairments, regardless of severity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545, 416.920(e), 416.945.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Parkhurst v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-09(e)

Plaintiff is correct that an “ALJ is required to consider the limiting effects of all of the Plaintiff's impairments, including those that are nonsevere, in assessing the Plaintiff’s RFC.” Lewis v. Kijakazi, No. 3:21-cv-00057-MR, 2022 WL 4456255, at *4 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a)(2); SSR 96-8p (“In assessing RFC, the adjudicator must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual's impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’”)).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity at step four of the disability evaluation.

Sanders v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-23(e)

At step four, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s impairments when formulating the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Beauerle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-24(e)

Applying these principles here, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s discussion was sufficient to comport with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e) and the requirement that an ALJ consider all of a claimant’s impairments in formulating that claimant’s RFC, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545 and SSR 96-8p.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider the claimant’s condition as a whole and evaluate all pertinent information in the record.

Brackins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-30(e)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the Plaintiff’s condition “taken as a whole,” Jamison, 814 F.2d at 588 (citations omitted), after evaluating all the pertinent information in the record, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a), 416.920(e), 416.945(a). As described above, this information includes the problems the Plaintiff had with her right eye, the results of the January 2022 surgery on that eye, and Dr. Rodriguez’s finding that the Plaintiff had limited left-eye near acuity, far acuity, depth perception, accommodation, and color vision.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ evaluating residual functional capacity to consider both severe and non-severe impairments using all relevant medical and other evidence in the claimant's case record.

Lau v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-30(e)

In evaluating an individual’s RFC, the ALJ considers impairments that are both “severe” and “not severe”, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to base the claimant’s residual functional capacity on all relevant medical and other evidence in the case record.

Hensinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-16(e)

In evaluating an individual’s RFC, the ALJ considers impairments that are both “severe” and “not severe”, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant's residual functional capacity after considering all medical and other evidence in the record.

Fraley v. SSA · filed 2025-03-19(e)

The ALJ must determine a claimant's RFC after considering all the medical and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an RFC assessment to measure a claimant's ability to function in a workplace despite medical limitations, based on all relevant medical and other evidence in the case record.

Calicchio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-23(e)

An RFC assessment evaluates a claimant’s ability to function in a workplace despite medical limitations, “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the] case record.”

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to consider both severe and nonsevere impairments when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

(SS) Tapia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-29(e)

However, an ALJ “must consider severe and nonsevere impairments in assessing a claimant’s RFC.” Rhone v. Kijakazi, No. 2:21-CV-01296-VCF, 2022 WL 2870589, at *2 (D. Nev. July 21, 2022) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) and 404.1545(a)(2)); see Hutton v. Astrue, 491 F. App'x 850 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Regardless of its severity, however, the ALJ was still required to consider [plaintiff’s nonsevere impairment of] PTSD when he determined [plaintiff’s] RFC.”).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity after considering all medical and other evidence in the record.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-31(e)

At Step Four of the sequential evaluation of a claimant, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity after considering all the medical and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At the RFC assessment before step four, § 404.1520(e) requires consideration of all the claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe.

Forsch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-11(e)

First, as in Emard and Napier, the ALJ explicitly referenced SSR 96-8p as controlling his RFC finding, stating that he “must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe (20 CFR 404.1520(e) and 404.1545; SSR 96-8p).” ... Finally, the ALJ expressly states that his RFC determination at Step Four was based on “careful consideration of the entire record” and that he “considered all symptoms.” ... In light of the above, the Court finds that the ALJ complied with the requirements set forth in Emard and Napier, thereby providing a sufficient basis to conclude that he properly considered Forsch's mild mental limitations in assessing the RFC.

At the RFC assessment before step four, § 404.1520(e) requires consideration of all the claimant’s impairments, including their combined effects and those that are not severe.

Hunt v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-13(e)

As part of the RFC assessment, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s “ability to perform work despite [his] limitations” in light of “‘all’ relevant record evidence.” Patterson, 846 F.3d at 659 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e)). ... In sum, the ALJ’s written decision indicates that he considered the combined effects of Claimant’s impairments on his ability to work. ... As such, the undersigned FINDS that the ALJ’s RFC assessment accounts for the combined effects of Claimant’s impairments.

At the RFC stage, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to base the claimant’s residual functional capacity on the claimant’s condition as a whole after assessing all the pertinent information presented.

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-28(e)

In sum, it evident from the ALJ’s decision that he based his RFC determination on the entirety of the Plaintiff’s condition, Jamison, 814 F.2d at 588 (citations omitted), after assessing all the pertinent information before him, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a), and that this determination is adequately substantiated.

Section 404.1520(e) requires RFC findings to be based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in the case record.

Burns v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-29(e)

“This requirement that determinations be made in light of the record as a whole helps to ensure that the focus in evaluating an application does not unduly concentrate on one single aspect of the claimant’s history[.]” Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (findings regarding RFCs will be “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence” in the case record).

Section 404.1520(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities to be severe at step two; finding one severe impairment makes the characterization of additional impairments non-dispositive when all impairments are considered in the RFC.

Daria · filed 2025-11-19(c)

A “severe impairment” is defined as “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... The finding of at least one severe impairment at step two is merely a “threshold inquiry,” the satisfaction of which prompts a full investigation into the limitations and restrictions imposed by all the individual’s impairments. ... So, the ALJ’s non-severe finding pertaining to Plaintiff’s physical impairments by itself does not require reversal. ... All this shows that the ALJ adequately considered both Plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments when crafting the RFC.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant's residual functional capacity using all medical and other relevant evidence in the record.

Maurer · filed 2025-11-20(e)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assesses a claimant’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) based on all medical and other relevant evidence in the record.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant's residual functional capacity after considering all medical and other evidence in the record.

Stamm · filed 2026-03-24(e)

The ALJ must determine a claimant's RFC after considering all the medical and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an individual assessment of residual functional capacity; a claimant whose mental impairment does not meet a listed impairment cannot be presumed capable of unskilled work.

Mental Health Ass'n of Minnesota v. Heckler · filed 1983-11-04(e)

The effect of this presumption was that mentally impaired claimants ruled ineligible for benefits under the third step were presumed ineligible under the subsequent steps, thereby bypassing the individual assessment required in the fourth level. ... The presumption preempts the thorough evaluation of claims intended by the statutes and regulations.

Under § 404.1520, examining a vocational expert about a claimant’s ability to perform work can show that the ALJ considered residual functional capacity.

Donald F. WHEAT, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary, Health & Human Services, Appellee · filed 1985-06-11

Wheat claims the AU failed to consider his residual functional capacity, his age, education, or work experience, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1984). We do not find the AU failed to consider Wheat’s residual functional capacity because the record does indicate the AU examined the vocational expert regarding Wheat’s ability to perform certain work.

Section 404.1520(e) requires consideration of relevant written symptom testimony when assessing residual functional capacity.

Vivian v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-17(e)

Because it is not evident that the ALJ considered this relevant evidence in formulating the RFC, the Court remands for correction of this legal error. ... Therefore, this case must be remanded for the ALJ to perform this role. See id. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity after step three and account for limitations associated with impairments deemed nonsevere.

Cruz Roman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-25(e)-(f)

Nonetheless, even if Plaintiff’s diabetes was not severe, ALJ McKenna was required to incorporate the associated limitations in his RFC determination. ... After step three, ALJ McKenna was required to determine Plaintiff’s RFC, which is the ability to perform physical or mental work activities on a sustained basis, notwithstanding limitations for collective impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e)-(f).

At the residual functional capacity stage, an ALJ must explain how a claimant’s nonsevere mental impairments affect work-related functions sufficiently to permit meaningful review.

Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-23(e)

The ALJ’s failure to discuss Robin’s anxiety and depression in her RFC analysis requires remand because she failed to “build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to [her] conclusion[,]” thereby frustrating meaningful review.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to consider non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, even after addressing them at step two.

Dooley · filed 2026-03-26

The fact that the ALJ addressed those impairments at step two and explained why she found them to be non-severe does not excuse the failure to address them at step four.

When a claimant has a severe impairment, § 404.1520(e) and (f) require consideration of residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience in assessing whether the claimant can perform past or other work.

Rodriguez v. Schweiker · filed 1981-10-07(e), (f)

Moreover, when a claimant is found to be severely impaired, the Secretary is bound, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 404.1520(f) (1981), to consider the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” — i. e., what the claimant is able to do despite her limitations— along with the claimant’s age, education and work experience, in determining whether the claimant is precluded from “past relevant” or any other work.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity after finding severe impairments that significantly limit basic work activities.

Childress v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-02-18(e)

Accordingly, the ALJ was required to determine claimant’s residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520’s sequential evaluation requires an assessment of a widow’s residual functional capacity when her impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment.

Williams v. Bowen · filed 1987-04-29

The Second Circuit recently noted the ambiguity as to how the basic procedure outlined in section 404.1520 fits with the special provisions for widows. ... In the absence of any elaboration from the Secretary on this issue, the decision in Tolany obligates the AU to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity to determine whether he or she can engage in any gainful activity, not merely to determine whether the impairments complained of do not meet the Listing of Impairments.

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

Civitarese v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-30(e)

At Step Four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Boggs v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-09-20(e)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to consider “all the relevant medical and other evidence” in determining a plaintiff’s RFC.

In assessing residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider the entire record, including alleged symptoms and non-severe impairments.

Bacon v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-21(e)

The ALJ must consider the entire record, including all alleged symptoms and non-severe impairments, when formulating a decision. SSR 16-3p, 96-8p; 20 CFR § 404.1520(e), 404.1545, 404.1529. ... The ALJ failed to mention or consider plaintiff's symptoms of urinary hesitancy from her numerous tumor resection surgeries.

At the residual functional capacity stage, the ALJ assesses what a claimant can still do using all relevant record evidence.

Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-05(e)

A claimant’s RFC is the most she can still do despite her limitations and is assessed based on an evaluation of all relevant evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.945(a)(1), (a)(3); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,474-01 (July 2, 1996).

A step-two finding of a severe impairment does not require the ALJ to include a corresponding limitation in the residual functional capacity.

Hazel v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-07(c)

It logically follows from this interpretation of “severe impairment” at Step Two that an ALJ need not account for every severe impairment in the RFC.

A moderate limitation found at step two does not, by itself, require a corresponding limitation in the residual functional capacity assessment.

Bratton v. O'Malley(CONSENT) · filed 2024-02-23(a)(4)

Thus, the ALJ was not required to include any particular limitations in Bratton’s RFC based simply on his step-two finding that Bratton was moderately impaired in her ability to interact with others.

The RFC must consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including those found to be non-severe.

Tate v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-23(e)

The RFC must consider all of a claimant’s impairments, include those found to be non-severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... The ALJ explained how she considered this evidence in formulating the RFC and so limiting the RFC to account for these medical issues.

Before step four, the ALJ must consider and discuss non-severe mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

ARENA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-03-05(e)

Applying this standard to the present record, the Court finds that the ALJ failed to sufficiently consider and discuss Plaintiff's non-severe mental impairments in making Plaintiffs RFC finding.

Section 404.1520(e) calls for an assessment of residual functional capacity based on all relevant evidence when a claimant’s impairment does not meet a listing.

Hopfer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-05(e)

A claimant’s RFC is the most she can still do despite her limitations and is assessed based on an evaluation of all relevant evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.945(a)(1), (a)(3); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,474-01 (July 2, 1996).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to consider physical and mental impairments when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity, including impairments found non-severe at step two.

Martinez-Maldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-14(e)

This error is dispositive because the ALJ must consider all physical and mental evidence when formulating a claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to consider limitations from both severe and non-severe impairments when formulating residual functional capacity.

Jenson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-19(e)

The ALJ must consider all limitations and restrictions when formulating the RFC, even those stemming from impairments that are not “severe.” See Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d at 1049; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... In sum, the ALJ erroneously failed to consider plaintiff’s fibromyalgia and other physical impairments in formulating the RFC.

A severe impairment found at step two does not automatically require a corresponding residual functional capacity limitation at step four; the ALJ must assess what the claimant can still do.

Fisher v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-27(e)

The ALJ’s finding that an impairment is severe at step two does not mandate a corresponding RFC limitation at step four, because severity is a threshold question, while RFC requires a more detailed analysis of what the claimant is still capable of doing.

Section 404.1520(e) directs the Commissioner to evaluate residual functional capacity under § 404.1545; it does not require the ALJ to identify which mental condition causes each limitation.

Irizarry-Lebron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-28(e)

However, Irizarry does not point to a specific portion of this regulation the ALJ violated in her analysis and I fail to see one. The regulation states the Commissioner will evaluate a claimant’s RFC as explained in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). And with respect to mental impairments, that regulation states the Commissioner must “first assess the nature and extent of [a claimant’s] mental limitations and restrictions and then determine [a claimant’s] residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. It does not say the ALJ must explain which limitation stems from which mental condition.

After step three, an ALJ must assess residual functional capacity before proceeding to steps four and five.

O'DONNELL v. SAUL · filed 2024-04-01(a)(4)

After the step three listings determination, an ALJ must make an RFC assessment before moving to steps four and five of the disability evaluation.

At step four, the ALJ must determine residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence, but need not expressly discuss every item considered.

Barto v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-12(e)

At step four, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... Thus, it is clear to the Court that the ALJ considered the entire record in formulating the RFC and did not err in failing to further discuss the specific evidence cited by Claimant.

Section 404.1520’s sequential evaluation allows an impairment found nonsevere at step two to be considered through its symptoms and limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

STARLING v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-04-17(a)(4)

Thus, although the ALJ did not list narcolepsy as a severe impairment, the ALJ did consider its related symptoms and limitations in formulating the RFC.

Under § 404.1520(e), an ALJ need not include a mild social-interaction limitation in the residual functional capacity when the ALJ explains why the evidence does not warrant it.

Cannon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-29(e)

Plaintiff’s objection lacks merit. The Magistrate Judge rejected Plaintiff’s argument on appeal because, in addition to the ALJ’s discussion demonstrating his finding that Plaintiff’s mild limitation did not affect her ability to work, “[t]he ALJ’s discussion . . . creates a logical bridge between his step-three finding and his determination that the evidence did not warrant any social interaction limitation” (R&R, ECF No. 15 at PageID.852).