20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

At step two, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether an impairment is severe, but an error at that threshold is harmless when the ALJ proceeds and adequately considers the impairment in assessing residual functional capacity.

Curry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-02(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Although Plaintiff’s ultimate contention of harmful error concerns the absence of limitations in Plaintiff’s RFC on account of Plaintiff’s mental impairments, Plaintiff’s arguments start back at step two, the step at which an ALJ must consider the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments. See Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1264-65 (11th Cir. 2019); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii),(c), 416.920(a)(4)(ii),(c). ... But even if the Court were to find the ALJ had erred in evaluating Plaintiff’s mental impairments at step two, any such error would be harmless given that “the ALJ nevertheless proceeded in the sequential evaluation, duly considered [Plaintiff’s] mental impairment[s] when assessing [her] RFC, and reached conclusions about [Plaintiff’s] mental capabilities supported by substantial evidence.” Schink, 935 F.3d at 1268. ... After all, step two only involves a “threshold” inquiry. Schink, 935 F.3d at 1265. It simply “‘acts as a filter’ to weed out claims where there are no severe impairments at all.” Bullard v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 752 F. App’x 753, 755 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting and citing Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1987)).

Section 404.1520(c) requires the Commissioner to determine at step two whether an impairment significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Langston v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2025-09-05(c)

To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). ... Furthermore, the standard for determining whether a claimant suffers from a severe impairment is a low standard. See Nicola v. Astrue, 480 F.3d 885, 887 (8th Cir. 2007) (reversing the decision of the ALJ and holding that a diagnosis of borderline intellectual functioning should have been considered severe because that diagnosis was supported by sufficient medical evidence). If the ALJ errs by finding a severe impairment is not severe, the ALJ’s disability determination must be reversed and remanded. See Nicola, 480 F.3d at 887. ... As recognized above, the standard for determining whether an impairment is severe is a low standard. Based upon the record, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence demonstrating his depression meet that standard. Thus, this case must be reversed and remanded for further consideration of this issue and a determination as to whether any of Plaintiff’s other impairments meet this low standard.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires an ALJ at step two to decide whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments is severe.

Goldston v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-11(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ decides whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments is ‘severe,’ § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), meaning that it significantly limits the claimant’s ‘physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,’ § 404.1522(a).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment, meaning one that significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities, on a de minimis showing, and a step-two error does not control later RFC analysis when the claim survives that step.

ANASTASIA JOY STEIN v. FRANK BISIGNANO · filed 2025-09-15(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant had severe impairments during the period for which she seeks disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is severe if it “significantly limits” an individual's “ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... As such, to succeed at step two, a claimant need only make a de minimus showing to establish that her impairment is severe within the meaning of the regulations. ... More specifically, whether a particular impairment is determined to be “severe” or “not severe” at step two is immaterial to the ALJ’s determination of a claimant’s RFC, which “‘consider[s] limitations and restrictions imposed by all of [the claimant’s] impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’’” ... Ergo, where a claim has not been denied at step two, alleged error at step two can never be cause for remand because, once the claimant has cleared the step-two hurdle, the ALJ’s findings at that step have no continued legal relevance to the findings in the subsequent steps nor to, ultimately, the determination of disability.

Section 404.1520(c) requires an ALJ at step two to determine whether a claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities.

McKenney v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-18(c)

At the second step, the ALJ determines whether a claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. An impairment is considered severe if it “significantly limits an individual's physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities,” or if it is “something beyond ‘a slight abnormality which would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.’”

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to establish a severe medically determinable impairment at step two before the disability inquiry proceeds.

Fuller v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-24(c)

At step two, the burden lays with Plaintiff to establish that (1) he has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments and (2) the impairment or combination of impairments is severe. ... Thus, reviewing the records that were before the ALJ at the time of her decision, the ALJ properly found that Plaintiff’s back pain was not a medically determinable impairment.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits basic work activities.

Fleming v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-30(c)

As relevant here, at step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant’s MDI of fibromyalgia is severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) Gdentifying an impairment as “severe” where it “significantly limits” the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities).

At step two, an impairment may be found not severe only when the evidence shows a slight abnormality with no more than a minimal effect on the claimant's ability to work; if the record is inconclusive, the disability inquiry should continue.

Bededa · filed 2025-10-07(c)

When an ALJ denies a claim at step two, the proper question is “whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the medical evidence clearly established that [the claimant] did not have a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.” ... If the medical record is inconclusive for the relevant period, or if the ALJ cannot clearly determine the effect of the impairment, the ALJ’s inquiry should not end at step two. ... The Court finds that substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that Plaintiff’s claim was non-severe.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) makes step two a severity screen: a claimant with a severe impairment proceeds to step three, while a claimant without one is not disabled.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-12-03(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Step two: Does the claimant have a “severe” impairment? If so, proceed to step three. If not, the claimant is not disabled. Id., §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c); 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c). ... Here, the ALJ decided step two in Plaintiff’s favor and continued with the sequential evaluation process. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s step-two finding of non-severe mental impairments, by itself, does not constitute reversible error.

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant to show a severe impairment that significantly limits basic work activities at step two; slight abnormalities with no more than a minimal effect on the ability to work do not satisfy that threshold.

Gail V. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-12-05(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, it is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate her medically determinable impairment or the combination of her impairments is severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii); see also Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259, 263 (3d Cir. 2000). A severe impairment significantly limits a plaintiff’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). An impairment or combination of impairments does not satisfy this severity threshold if medical and other evidence only establishes “slight abnormalities which have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.”

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

MARSHACK · filed 2025-12-30(c)

As mentioned above, at step two of the five-step sequential inquiry, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). An impairment is not severe if does not limit the claimant’s “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. ... Given the detailed discussion and analysis regarding the severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairments, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe at step two when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Kyoko M. H. v. Bisignano · filed 2026-01-20(c)

At step two of the five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ considers whether a claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, or combination of impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. If an impairment, or a combination of impairments, significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform a basic work activity and has lasted, or is expected to last, for at least a year continuously, those impairments are considered “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... Assuming without deciding that the ALJ erred in not finding additional impairments to be severe, any such error was harmless.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to use a de minimis screen and continue the sequential evaluation unless the medical evidence clearly establishes that the claimant lacks a severe impairment.

Roman · filed 2025-11-17(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ must determine the severity of the claimed physical or mental impairment(s). If the claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, he is not disabled. ... The Court concludes the ALJ did not apply the “de minimis” standard in this case. ... The question is whether the medical evidence “clearly establishe[s]” the lack of limitations. ... The medical evidence, including Dr. Chan’s opinion, does not “clearly establish” that Claimant had no work-related impairments during the relevant period. Therefore, the Court reverses for the ALJ to proceed beyond step two on remand.

Section 404.1520 requires objective medical evidence of a medically determinable impairment at step two, but that step is only a de minimis screen for weak claims.

Sutton · filed 2025-11-17(a)(4)(ii)

Although the medical record before 2009 does not provide a complete picture of Plaintiff’s mental impairments during that time, it includes enough objective medical evidence to pass the de minimis threshold of step two. ... In sum, the ALJ erred by ending the disability inquiry at step two for Plaintiff’s Title II applications prior to 2009 and the Court remands on this issue.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether a claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments.

LOWE-LITTLEJOHN · filed 2026-02-26(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically severe physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments. Salles v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 229 Fed. App’x 140, 144 (3d Cir. 2007); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) makes step-two severity a de minimis screen, so finding an impairment severe does not itself require adopting every asserted functional limitation in the RFC.

Anderson · filed 2026-03-10(a)(4)(ii)

However, this argument is also meritless, considering that the showing required to satisfy the step-two standard for severity is de minimis. ... As such, the finding that Binner’s opinion supported the step-two severity finding in no way implies that the ALJ was required to incorporate the opinion’s limitations into the RFC finding, contrary to what Plaintiff argues.

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires an ALJ to determine whether a claimant has any medically determinable impairments and, if so, whether they are severe.

Bryant · filed 2026-03-26(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant has any “medically determinable impairments” and, if so, whether they are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); 404.1521.

At step two, an error in finding an additional impairment nonsevere is harmless when the claimant has another severe impairment and the evaluation proceeds to step three.

Broaddus v. Saul · filed 2022-04-12(a)(4)(ii)

Thus, any error with respect to evaluation of the severity of any other impairments at step two was harmless and provides “no valid basis for remand.”

At step two, a meaningful impairment of the ability to perform basic work activities satisfies the severity test; vocational factors are not considered.

Prickett v. Heckler · filed 1985-08-30(c)

Although vocational factors are not to be considered at step two of the evaluation, a showing of meaningful impairment of one’s ability to perform basic work-related activities would be sufficient to satisfy the severity test.

At step two, an impairment may be found not severe only if it does not interfere with the claimant’s ability to work.

Wichman v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-07(c)

In order for an impairment to be found “not severe” under Stone, therefore, it cannot impose any interference on the ability to perform work activities.

At the second step of the disability evaluation, the severity test screens out only groundless claims.

Sherman v. Bowen · filed 1986-10-30(c)

The Secretary’s regulations require a sequential evaluation of disability claims. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... The second step in this sequence requires that a claimant have a severe impairment. ... Thus, the “severity” test is a de minimis screening device, “designed to do no more than screen out groundless claims.”

Section 404.1520(c) permits denial at step two when a claimant’s impairment is not severe, using severity as a de minimis screening requirement.

Dixon v. Bowen · filed 1987-11-05(c)

At this time, plaintiffs have not presented any evidence indicating that the Secretary currently intends to misapply step 2 or this regulation. Indeed, all of the relevant evidence presented thus far is consistent with SSR 85-28 and with the Secretary’s claim that he intends to apply step 2 as a de minimis screening device to eliminate frivolous claims. Accordingly, the court must deny plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction.

Section 404.1520(c)’s step two severity standard is facially valid, so its supposed invalidity cannot support injunctive relief.

Johnson v. Bowen · filed 1988-10-06(c)

When it entered summary judgment for the Johnson class in September 1984, this court ruled that the severity standard articulated by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) & 416.920(c) violated the Social Security Act. ... Thus, in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Yuckert, this court has no choice but to vacate its earlier invalidation of the severity standard.

At step two, a claim may be denied on medical evidence alone when it is totally groundless from a medical standpoint, without considering the claimant’s vocational circumstances.

Higgs v. Bowen · filed 1988-10-28(c)

In other words, as this court has recognized, the severity requirement may still be employed as an administrative convenience to screen out claims that are “totally groundless” solely from a medical standpoint. ... Given this clear record, the Appeals Council’s decision to dismiss this case at the step two severity stage, on consideration of the medical evidence alone, was warranted by the facts and in accord with the law.

SSR 85-28 interprets the step-two severity rule without exceeding its regulatory scope.

Wilson v. Sullivan · filed 1989-03-31(c)

SSR 85-28 merely clarifies and interprets step two of the Secretary’s sequential evaluation process; it does not go beyond the scope of the regulations comprising step two.

Section 404.1520(c)’s step-two severity rule is not invalid as applied based on increased federal returns and misapplied impairment examples without evidence of a system-wide harsher standard.

Wilson v. Sullivan · filed 1990-03-30(c)

The Secretary’s motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ claim that the Secretary used a harsher standard to evaluate disability than permitted by Yuckert and the Social Security Act, as evidenced by the increase in the number of federal returns and the use of the twenty examples that were misapplied, will be granted.

At step two, a claimant must demonstrate a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments with supporting medical evidence.

Flint v. Sullivan · filed 1990-07-31(c)

Step two requires the claimant to demonstrate that he has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. ... In sum, the Secretary’s refusal to find a disability based on the lack of medical evidence is fully supported by substantial evidence in the record.

At step two, the severity assessment must consider uncontroverted medical evidence of mental impairments.

Durant v. Chater · filed 1995-10-24(c)

These statements demonstrate that the Step 2 analysis failed to include consideration of Durant’s borderline to low average intelligence, or even her mild organic impairment. This is legal error.

At step two, a denial based on an impairment being nonsevere warrants close scrutiny because the step screens out groundless claims.

McCrea v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-05-27(c)

Due to this limited function, the ... Commissioner’s determination to deny an applicant’s request for benefits at step two should be reviewed with close scrutiny.

At step two, an impairment is not severe only if it is a slight abnormality that does not significantly limit basic work activity.

Charlton v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-08(c)

Because the second step of the five-step evaluation involves de minimis review to screen groundless claims, an impairment is found not severe only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that does not significantly limit any “basic work activity.”

At step two, an impairment is non-severe only if it is a slight abnormality that would not be expected to interfere with the claimant’s ability to work.

Rangel v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-06(c)

Under Stone, an impairment may be non-severe only where “it is a slight abnormality which has such minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience.” ... This difference, coupled with the ALJ’s failure to cite Stone or otherwise indicate he was applying the Fifth Circuit’s standard, leads the Court to conclude an incorrect standard of severity was applied at step two of the analysis.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Taylor v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-08(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines whether a claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, ie., one that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to show that an impairment significantly limits basic work activities; a diagnosis alone is insufficient.

Pritchett v. Astrue · filed 2007-03-23(c)

A claimant at step two “must show more than the mere presence of a condition or ailment.”

Once an ALJ proceeds beyond step two, § 404.1520(a)(4) does not require a separate severity finding for each impairment.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-02-22(a)(4)

Under the regulations, once the ALJ proceeded beyond Step Two of the sequential evaluation, he did not need to specify the severity of each of Brown’s individual impairments.

At step two, the ALJ must assess an impairment’s severity during the claimed period, including the time before treatment improved it.

Fink v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-02(c)

Therefore, by concluding that the migraines are not severe because they have improved, the ALJ fails to address the severity of Plaintiff’s migraines for the period from onset to the stimulator implant.

At step two, a claimant must show a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that meets the duration requirement and significantly limits basic work activities.

Barnhouse v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-02(a)(4)(ii), (c)

To satisfy this burden, the claimant must show she suffers from a Amedically determinable@ physical or mental condition that satisfies the duration requirement and Asignificantly limits@ her ability to do one or more basic work activities. ... It is clear that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Barnhouse does not suffer from a severe physical impairment.

At step two, an ALJ may use SSR 85-28 to assess whether an impairment is severe because it satisfies the applicable severity standard.

Keel v. Saul · filed 2021-01-22(c)

Though the precise wording differs, Stone and SSR 85-28 are not substantially different enough to warrant a finding of error.

At step two, the disability evaluation must continue if the effect of an impairment on basic work activities is unclear.

Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-02(a)(4)(ii)

Importantly, if the effect of an impairment or combination of impairments is unclear, the sequential evaluation should continue beyond step two. Webb, 433 F.3d at 687. This did not happen here.

At step two, failure to identify an impairment as severe may not require reversal when the ALJ continues the evaluation and considers that impairment.

Webber v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-21(c)

If an ALJ misses a severe impairment at step two, reversal may not be required if the step is resolved in the claimant’s favor. ... Here, the ALJ continued consideration of whether there was new and material evidence of deterioration in Plaintiff’s condition and considered all of the impairments mentioned by Plaintiff throughout the decision. There is no error at step two.

At step two, classifying an impairment as non-severe is harmless if the ALJ finds another severe impairment and considers all impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Davis v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-09-21(a)(4)(ii)

Upon review, the Court finds that any possible error by the ALJ in categorizing Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia and neuropathy as non-severe impairments would be harmless as the ALJ found Plaintiff had several severe impairments and properly considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments, including non-severe impairments, in determining her RFC.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities; a denial requires substantial evidence that the limitation is no more than minimal.

Kuper v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-05(c)

Based on the opinions of the state medical examiners, Dr. Schumilas, Plaintiff’s subjective testimony, and the objective medical evidence, this Court finds that the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff's degenerative disc disease was “not severe” was not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520’s step-two process does not require reversal for failure to identify an additional severe impairment when the ALJ finds another severe impairment and continues the evaluation.

Bartels v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-06

Where an ALJ determines that one or more impairments is severe at step two and proceeds with the sequential process, the ALJ's failure to find additional severe impairments at step two does not constitute reversible error.

At step two, a finding that a mental impairment is nonsevere does not require reversal when the ALJ considers that impairment in assessing residual functional capacity.

Pond v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-05(c)

Because the ALJ concluded that the evidence did not support more than a minimal limitation in Ms. Pond’s ability to perform basic mental work activities (Tr. 29), considered all severe and nonsevere impairments in assessing the RFC (id.), and adopted an RFC with mental limitations based on “all of her impairments” (Tr. 32, 37), the Court finds no reversible error in the ALJ’s finding that Ms. Pond’s mental impairments were nonsevere.

At step two, an error in failing to classify an impairment as severe is harmless if the ALJ finds another severe impairment and proceeds to step three.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-11(a)(4)(ii)

With this standard in mind, even if the ALJ should have characterized Plaintiff’s upper and lower extremity impairments as severe, any error is harmless because the ALJ characterized other impairments – degenerative disc disease, disease of the cervical spine, obesity, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety disorder – as severe.

At step two, an ALJ may find an impairment non-severe when it causes no more than minimal limitations on basic work activity, considered alone and with other impairments.

Horace v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-18(a)(4)(ii)

Here, the ALJ adequately assessed Plaintiff’s complaints of urinary frequency and/or incontinence, finding the matter to be non-severe at step two and ultimately arriving at an RFC that is supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, the severity screening threshold is de minimis, and the ALJ must explain the rejection of relevant medical evidence.

BARBETTA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-03-18(c)

By failing to explain why such evidence was found unpersuasive, the ALJ exacts a burden of proof at Step Two that “went beyond the de minimis screening threshold.”

At step two, an impairment is not severe if it causes no more than minimal limitations on basic work activities.

Queen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-19(c)

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not shown that her feet or ankle impairments caused more than minimal limitations on her ability to do basic work activities prior to her date last insured, the undersigned finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that her impairments were not severe.

At step two, an ALJ may treat unsteady gait as a symptom rather than a separate severe impairment when the record supports that classification.

Sanders v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-27(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ reasonably considered unsteady gait in her analysis of symptoms under the RFC assessment, rather than as a severe impairment.

At step two, an ALJ’s failure to identify an impairment as severe does not, by itself, require remand.

HUGGINS v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-03-29(a)(4)(ii)

As an initial matter, the AL]’s omission of a severe impairment at step two does not, without more, necessitate remand.

A step-two error in classifying another impairment as nonsevere is harmless when the ALJ finds a severe impairment and proceeds to step three.

Reagen v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-31(c)

Thus, any error with respect to evaluation of the severity of any other impairments at step two was harmless and provides “no valid basis for remand.”

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits basic work activities; identifying an impairment and alleging disabling pain alone does not establish severity.

Ivey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-09(c)

“[A]ny impairment or combination of impairments ... which significantly limits [a person’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” is considered “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Although step two “requir[es] no more than a de minimis showing,” Glanden, 86 F.4th at 843, this does not mean a claimant will always survive step two simply by identifying a medically determinable impairment and claiming to suffer from disabling pain as a result of that impairment.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to demonstrate a medically severe impairment at step two before the agency considers nonmedical factors.

Dixon v. Sullivan · filed 1992-05-08(c)

Plaintiffs’ claim that the SSR and the POMS are facially invalid because they prevent adjudicators from making individualized functional assessments with consideration given to all the material evidence is a thinly disguised attempt to relitigate essentially the same question decided in Yuckert: whether medical severity may be determined without consideration of non-medical factors. Yuckért makes clear that at step two, the type of all-inclusive consideration of the material evidence which plaintiffs seek is not mandated.

At step two, the regulation requires the Commissioner to deny disability only when impairments do not significantly limit basic work activities.

Sousa v. Chater · filed 1996-09-30(c)

Step two of the sequential evaluation or the "severity regulation,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c)—the step at issue in the present case—provides: ... If you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled. We will not consider your age, education, and work experience.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step process for evaluating adult disability claims, including a step-two severity determination.

Hill v. Chater · filed 1996-10-30(c)

The ALJ stated that he found no “significantly limiting” mental disorder “from a functional standpoint.” Id. at 80. This is step two language. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); 404.1520a(b)(3) and (c)(1); 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to assess the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments at step two and continue the sequential evaluation when a severe impairment is found.

Hicks v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-16

As indicated above, at step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must “consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (4) (ii). If the ALJ finds that the claimant has a severe impairment, the ALJ must proceed to step three; if, however, the claimant does not have a severe impairment, the claimant is found to be not disabled. ... The Court agrees with the Commissioner that any alleged error at step two does not require reversal in this case. ... The Court is persuaded by the reasoning of these decisions and agrees that, in this case, any legal error made at step two does not require reversal.

Section 404.1520 requires a five step disability evaluation, including determining at step two whether an impairment significantly limits basic work activities.

Cabibi v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-28(c)

As abovementioned, “[a]t step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... However, in the Court’s view, ALJ Cohen misconstrued the' applicable legal standard when making these findings. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that ALJ Cohen erred in concluding that the Plaintiffs fibromyalgia was not a severe impairment, because he relied solely on the lack of objective evidence and did not consider evidence from Rheumatology Associates which revealed the nature of the Plaintiffs fibromyalgia symptoms. Thus, the Court remands this case to the ALJ on this ground as well.

At step two, a claimant must show a medically determinable severe impairment; limited range of motion and weakness can establish severity.

(SS) Cherie A. Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-23(c)

At step two, a claimant must make a “threshold showing” that (1) she has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments and (2) the impairment or combination of impairments is severe. ... Because Plaintiff’s left shoulder impairment resulted in positive findings that included both limited range of motion and weakness—and was thus worse than her right shoulder—the ALJ erred by finding her shoulder impairment was not severe.

At step two, finding at least one severe impairment allows the disability evaluation to continue.

Yaden v. SSA · filed 2019-08-23(a)(4)

If the ALJ finds at least one of the claimant’s alleged impairments is severe in nature, the claim survives Step Two. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4).

At step two, the ALJ must assess the severity of the claimant’s impairments; only trivial impairments may be rejected at that threshold.

Schink v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-27(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must “consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s).” Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237 (alteration in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii)). ... Based on these standards, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that Schink’s mental impairments were not severe.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Vooge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-31(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... The ALJ reasonably concluded that this evidence showed Plaintiff’s impairments caused no more than a minimal limitation on Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work-related tasks during the relevant period.

At step two, a claimant must show that an impairment significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities; a diagnosis alone is insufficient.

Husic v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-02(c)

More importantly, whether or not an "acceptable" medical source diagnosed plaintiff with one or more mental impairments, the burden at step two remains on the claimant to demonstrate not just the existence of an impairment, but also to show how the impairment causes a work-related limitation; i.e., how it "significantly limits" the ability to complete one or more basic work activities.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Glidewell v. Saul · filed 2020-02-27(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Plaintiff, who bears the burden of proving severity and harmful error, has identified no evidence indicating that her mental health conditions more than minimally impacted her ability to perform basic work activities.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

(SS) Isiah v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-03(c)

“[A]n impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] . . . ability to do basic work activities.” Id. at 1290 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) & 404.1521(a)). ... Here, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred at step two by improperly rejecting the opinion of consultative psychologist Dr. Izzi as to the severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairment of anxiety disorder. (See Doc. 15 at 14–16; Doc. 19 at 2–6.) The Court agrees.

At step two, an impairment or combination of impairments is severe only if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(c)

In sum, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that prior to December 31, 2010, Clark did “not have an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits [her] ability to perform basic work activities.” R. 649.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

(SS) Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-19(c)

This error was not harmless, as the ALJ found at Step Two that plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was a non-medically determinable impairment or, alternatively, that it was a “nonsevere impairment [that] does not cause more than minimal limitation in her ability to perform basic work activities, and any limitations caused by her nonsevere impairment of fibromyalgia are accounted for in the below residual functional capacity[.]” AT 25. The RFC does not account for multiple limitations opined by the treating specialist. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on this basis.

Finding at least one severe impairment satisfies step two; failing to classify additional impairments as severe is harmless when the ALJ proceeds to later steps.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c)

Accordingly, since the ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffered from multiple severe impairments at step two, and thus proceeded beyond step two in the sequential analysis, any error in failing to find that Plaintiff suffered from other severe impairments is rendered harmless.

At step two, impairments considered together are severe if they significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

May v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-04(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is severe if it “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), and has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits basic work activities; an error in classifying an impairment as nonsevere is harmless when the ALJ continues the evaluation and considers its effects.

Montgomery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-11(c)

Because there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s step two determination with regard to plaintiff’s thoracic and cervical spine injuries, this court will not disturb his findings. Moreover, because the ALJ did not deny plaintiff’s claim at step two of the sequential analysis, and considered plaintiff’s neck and back pain and the resulting limitations on plaintiff’s ability to lift, carry, and perform other work-related tasks as part of his RFC analysis, this court further finds that any error in excluding plaintiff’s cervical and thoracic spine injuries from the list of severe impairments would be harmless. (T. 18-19).

An error at step two in classifying an impairment as non-severe is harmless if the ALJ considers that impairment at later steps to the extent supported by the record.

Gathright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-19(a)(4)(ii)

Assuming, however, that the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff’s CPS and CFS were non-severe impairments at step two, his error is harmless because, at step four, the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments to the extent that they were supported by the record.

At step two, citing SSR 85-28 instead of Stone to state the severity standard is legal error, subject to harmless error review.

Tran v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(c)

This Court has adopted the view that citing to SSR 85-28 rather than Stone constitutes legal error.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it has more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

(SS) (CONSENT) Barney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-07(c)

The court agrees, however, that the ALJ’s conclusion at Step Two as to plaintiff’s mental health impairments is unsupported by substantial evidence. ... At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines which of claimant’s alleged impairments are “severe” within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two, an impairment is not severe unless it significantly limits basic work activities for at least 12 months.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-23(c)

An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities for at least 12 months.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Garza v. Saul · filed 2021-01-15(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... While Plaintiff’s citations support the ALJ’s finding of a medically determinable mental impairment, the ALJ’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence that contradict the severity of impairment reported by Plaintiff.

At step two, an impairment is non-severe only if it does not significantly limit the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Best v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-26(c)

Because the evidence does not clearly establish that Plaintiff’s migraine headaches are non-severe, the ALJ’s step-two determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, the claimant must show that an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Vanhaitsma v. Saul · filed 2022-02-07(c)

An impairment is “severe” if it significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities for at least a consecutive twelve-month period. ... The ALJ reasonably relied on the evidence in the record and concluded that Vanhaitsma failed to meet his burden of showing that his impairments imposed more than minimal limitations in his ability to perform basic work activities.

Once an ALJ finds at least one severe impairment, the evaluation continues to later steps; failing to label another impairment severe is not reversible error when the ALJ considers its limitations at those steps.

Houchens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-22(a)(4)(ii)

Because the ALJ considered the limitations imposed by the medically determinable severe and non-severe impairments in determining Plaintiff’s RFC and whether Plaintiff was capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy (Tr. 21-26), the ALJ’s failure to find that Plaintiff’s left carpal tunnel syndrome and left cubital tunnel syndrome are “severe” within the meaning of the regulations could not constitute reversible error.

At step two, an ALJ must determine whether an impairment significantly limits a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Polnaszek v. O'Malley · filed 2022-02-24(c)

The ALJ erred by not finding, either individually or in combination, a severe impairment of the left upper extremity and/or bilateral wrists/hands—substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s findings otherwise.

Section 404.1520(c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Pedro v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-23(c)

we will assess the degree of functional limitation the additional impairment(s) imposes to determine if it significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, i.e., is a “severe” impairment(s), as defined in §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). If the additional impairment(s) does not cause limitations that are “severe” as defined in §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c) we will not find that the additional impairment imposes “an additional and significant work-related limitation of function[.]” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P„ App. 1, § 12.00A. ... Cases interpreting Fanning and the new regulations conclude that if an ALJ finds an impairment to be “severe” at step two of the disability analysis, “that impairment necessarily has more than a slight or minimal effect on claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.” ... As plaintiffs lengthy list of environmental restrictions demonstrates, these restrictions have more than a minimal or slight impact on plaintiffs ability to do work, satisfying the severe standard. I conclude that the ALJ committed legal error when he concluded that plaintiff did not satisfy the final prong of Listing 12.05C. Under the regulations and Fanning, plaintiffs asthma and eczema are an “additional and significant work related limitation of function” satisfying the final prong of Listing 12.05C.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it has more than a minimal effect on basic work activities; that finding alone does not establish the extent of the claimant’s functional limits.

Jacobs v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-25(c)

Second, the standard for showing an impairment is “severe” at step 2 of the sequential evaluation, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), is a de minimis one, Hinkle v. Apfel, 132 F.3d 1349, 1352 (10th Cir. 1997); Williams, 844 F.2d at 751. To meet it, a plaintiff need show only his impairment or combination of impairments has more than a minimal effect on his ability to do basic work activities. Williams, 844 F.2d at 751. Such a finding essentially is little more than a conclusion that a medically determinable impairment exists; it in no way indicates how limiting vel non that impairment is.

At step two, the ALJ evaluates the severity of a claimant’s impairments; impairments found non-severe may still need to be considered when assessing residual functional capacity.

AGOSTINI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-10(a)(4)(ii)

Consequently, the ALJ’s decision is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings so that the ALJ may properly consider and characterize Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments, and if such impairments are medically determinable, consider how Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments affect his RFC and his capability to perform work that exists in the national economy.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, and the ALJ must fairly evaluate the evidence bearing on severity.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-25(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” within the meaning of the Social Security Act if it significantly limits an individual’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... The Court agrees with Petitioner that this analysis is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Under the sequential evaluation process, a step-two severity error is harmless when the ALJ finds other severe impairments, continues the evaluation, and considers the claimant’s mental impairments later.

Greear v. Saul · filed 2022-09-15(a)(4)

Nevertheless, to the extent that the ALJ erred in not assessing these medical reports in step two, such error is harmless. The ALJ found that Greear suffered from four severe impairments, so step two was resolved in his favor and the ALJ proceed with the remaining steps in the evaluation process.

Section 404.1520(c) ends the disability evaluation at step two if the claimant has no severe medically determinable impairment.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-24(c)

A finding of non-severity at step two ends the analysis. ... On this record, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s Meniere’s disease was not severe is supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, failing to classify an additional impairment as severe does not require reversal if the ALJ finds another severe impairment and considers all impairments at later steps.

Polecat v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-27(c)

To the extent Claimant contends her anxiety and depression should have been determined severe at step two, where an ALJ finds at least one “severe” impairment, a failure to designate another impairment as “severe” at step two does not constitute reversible error because, under the regulations, the agency at later steps considers the combined effect of all of a claimant's impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of sufficient severity.

An ALJ’s failure to identify an alleged impairment at step two can be harmless when the ALJ considers it during the step two and residual functional capacity analyses.

Adams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-12

However, the Court finds this omission to be harmless error given that the ALJ expressly considered anxiety and agoraphobia in the context of the Step 2 analysis and in his RFC analysis.

Section 404.1520(c) ends the sequential evaluation at step two when the claimant has no severe impairment.

Cyree v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-11(c)

The Court need not address Plaintiff’s remaining issues because the five-step analysis ends when a claimant is determined not disabled at step two. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires a severe impairment to pass step two; an error in classifying a particular impairment as non-severe does not warrant reversal if the ALJ properly considers it in later steps.

Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-20(c)

Given these principles, to the extent Plaintiff’s argument is that the ALJ erred by failing to categorize her mental impairments as severe for step-two purposes (Doc. 17 at 17-19), reversal is not warranted.

At step two, a medically determinable impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Wood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-20(c)

The Court accordingly finds the ALJ erred at step two by both failing to find migraine headaches are severe and discounting Plaintiff’s testimony in support of the severity of the migraine headaches.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to consider whether an impairment significantly limits a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities at step two.

(SS) Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-26(c)

Accordingly, the ALJ erred at step two by not considering whether Plaintiff’s PTSD is a severe impairment.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Albright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-28(c)

Because the ALJ considered Plaintiff's testimony and the objective medical evidence regarding the severity of Plaintiffs physical and mental impairments, his step-two determination is supported by substantial evidence and is otherwise proper.

At Step Two, failure to classify an impairment as severe is harmless if the ALJ considers it in the remaining steps of the disability analysis.

Hritz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-08(a)(4)(ii)

Although the ALJ did not find Mr. Hritz’s ASD diagnosis was a severe impairment at Step Two, the ALJ considered all severe and non-severe impairments throughout the decision and included appropriate accommodations within the RFC.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

(SS) Corralejo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-20(c)

First, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ explained that Plaintiff’s diabetes mellitus significantly limits her ability to work, which renders the impairment severe.

At step two, an error in classifying an impairment as non-severe is harmless if the claimant advances to later steps and the ALJ considers all impairments in assessing residual functional capacity.

Jaynes v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-03-14(c)

In short, where a claimant prevails at step two and the ALJ considers all impairments—regardless of severity—in the subsequent steps, an ALJ’s failure to consider an impairment “severe” is harmless.

At step two, an impairment must significantly limit basic work activities; omitting an impairment is harmless if the ALJ proceeds and considers its limitations at later steps.

Hall v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-10(a)(4)(ii)

Here, the ALJ resolved step two in Plaintiff’s favor, and extensively discussed Plaintiff’s pain-related symptoms later in the five-part analysis. Tr. 17-24. Any failure to categorize Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia or trigeminal neuralgia as severe at step two is therefore harmless.

Section 404.1520(c) uses a de minimis severity threshold at step two; an impairment that clears it must be evaluated in the remaining steps.

Lucas · filed 2026-04-16(c)

The question is whether Karen L.’s mental impairments for the period in question rise above the de minimis severity requirement. In this case, they do. Had the ALJ applied the proper standard, she would have concluded that Karen L.’s depression was a severe impairment at step two and continued with the rest of the five-step process.

At step two, the agency determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment, and only a de minimis showing is needed to proceed to the later steps of the disability evaluation.

Lee v. Barnhart · filed 2004-12-08(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the agency determines whether the claimant’s alleged impairment(s) are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c); 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c). “An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. §§ 404.1521(a); 416.921(a). ... In light of these definitions, case law prescribes a very limited role for step two analysis. ... While “the mere presence of a condition or ailment” is not enough to get the claimant past step two, Hinkle v. Apfel , 132 F.3d 1349, 1352 (10th Cir. 1997), a claimant need only make a “de minimus” showing of impairment to move on to further steps in the analysis, Langley , 373 F.3d at 1123.

Section 404.1520 makes severity a threshold issue at step two of the five-step disability analysis.

Lyons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-12-29

The label “severe,” is for the purposes of the second step in the five step process, which requires that Plaintiffs impairment be “severe”" before he can be found to be disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires sequential evaluation of disability claims and permits ending the inquiry at step two only when medical evidence clearly establishes no medically severe impairment; otherwise, the ALJ must proceed.

Webb v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2005-12-28(a)(4)(ii)

To determine whether a claimant has established disability, an ALJ must evaluate the evidence adduced by following a five-step, sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... Step two, then, is “a de minimis screening device [used] to dispose of groundless claims,” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290, and an ALJ may find that a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments only when his conclusion is “clearly established by medical evidence.” S.S.R. 85-28. ... We do not intimate that Webb will succeed in proving that he is disabled and entitled to disability insurance benefits. But we do hold that the ALJ lacked substantial evidence to find that the medical evidence clearly established Webb’s lack of a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. The ALJ should have continued the sequential analysis beyond step two because there was not substantial evidence to show that Webb’s claim was “groundless.” See Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290.

At Step Two, the ALJ must assess whether the claimant’s impairments, alone or in combination, significantly limit the ability to perform basic work activities.

Dutil v. Barnhart · filed 2005-12-09(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step, the ALJ must consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairments. ... In doing so, the ALJ must determine whether the impairments, alone or in combination, significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work skills.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to show a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities at step two.

Fleetwood v. Barnhart · filed 2007-01-04(c)

At step two, the claimant must prove she has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits her ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a), 416.920(c), -416.921(a). The severity determination is based solely on medical factors.

At step two of the sequential evaluation, § 404.1520 treats severity as a low-threshold screening requirement: an impairment is severe if it is more than a slight abnormality, but the claimant bears the burden of showing severity.

Jakubowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-01-10(c)

As Jakubowski points out, this Court has recognized that a step two severity determination simply functions as a “screening device” to eliminate spurious claims of disability, and therefore a plaintiff’s burden to establish the severity of an impairment under step two is not demanding. ... As this Court stated in Newell: “If the evidence presented by the claimant presents more than a ‘slight abnormality,’ the step-two requirement of ‘severe’ is met, and the sequential evaluation process should continue.” Newell, 347 F.3d at 546.

At step two, an impairment is severe when it more than minimally limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; the term “significant” is construed liberally in favor of the claimant.

Griffeth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-02-09(c)

The regulations define a “severe” impairment as “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... The ALJ did not misinterpret the severity regulation. At step two “significant” is liberally construed in favor of the claimant. The regulations provide that if the claimant’s degree of limitation is none or mild, the Commissioner will generally conclude the impairment is not severe, “unless the evidence otherwise indicates that there is more than a minimal limitation in your ability to do basic work activities.” 20 CFR § 404.1520a(d).

At step two, an impairment or combination of impairments is severe if it significantly limits the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities, and the evaluation may end at that step only when the impairment has no more than a minimal impact on the ability to work.

Page v. Astrue · filed 2007-04-26(a)(4)(ii)

Step two of the regulations involves a determination, based on the medical evidence, whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). "The sequential evaluation process may be terminated at step two only when the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments would have no more than a minimal impact on her ability to work." Caviness v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 603, 605 (8th Cir. 2001), citing Nguyen v. Chater, 75 F.3d 429, 430-31 (8th Cir. 1996).

At step two, an impairment is severe when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Tagger v. Astrue · filed 2008-01-24(c)

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations establishing a five-step sequential evaluation process for the ALJ to follow in a disability case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. In the First Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If not, in the Second Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments significantly limiting him from performing basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ at step two to consider the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments.

Petty v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-27(a)(4)(ii)

Pursuant to step two of the disability inquiry, the ALJ had to consider “the medical severity” of Petty’s conditions. 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as not severe when it is only a slight abnormality that does not significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Parks v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-04(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments will be found “not severe” at step two when medical evidence establishes that the claimant has only a slight abnormality that does not significantly limit her physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); 416.920(c); SSR 85-28. Parks alleged a mental impairment resulting from depression, and physical impairments resulting from gastrointestinal problems, migraine headaches, and hypothyroidism. The ALJ’s determination that these alleged impairments were not severe is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, applying only a minimal burden that screens out clearly insubstantial claims.

Serrano v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-20(c)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); 404.1521(b). The claimant has a minimal burden at step two as the severity regulation is designed to eliminate only clearly insubstantial claims.

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires consideration of whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments meeting the duration requirement; finding one severe impairment clears step two and requires consideration of all impairments in the remaining steps.

Simpson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-08-27(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, if a claimant does not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment (i.e., a condition that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities) that meets the duration requirement in § 404.1509 (longer or expected to be longer than a continuous period of at least 12 months), or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, then she is not disabled. ... We find the ALJ erred. ... a finding of severity as to even one impairment clears the claimant of step two of the analysis and should cause the ALJ to consider both the severe and non-severe impairments in the remaining steps.

At step two, an impairment is severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities for at least twelve consecutive months.

Galligan v. Astrue · filed 2009-09-02(a)(4)(ii)

An impairment is “severe” if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities for at least a consecutive twelve month period.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to assess impairment severity at step two, but an erroneous non-severity finding is harmless when another severe impairment is found and the omitted impairment is considered at the remaining steps.

Hicks v. Barnhart · filed 2010-06-16(a)(4)(ii)

As indicated above, at step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must “consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the ALJ finds that the claimant has a severe impairment, the ALJ must proceed to step three; if, however, the claimant does not have a severe impairment, the claimant is found to be not disabled. See id. ... The Court agrees with the Commissioner that any alleged error at step two does not require reversal in this case. ... The Court is persuaded by the reasoning of these decisions and agrees that, in this case, any legal error made at step two does not require reversal. Even assuming that the ALJ legally erred when he determined that Plaintiff’s borderline intellectual functioning and depression were non-severe, such an omission did not prejudice Plaintiff because the ALJ specifically found that Plaintiff’s seizure disorder and hypertension were severe, AR at 27, 30, and therefore continued to consider the remaining steps in the sequential analysis, see id. at 27-31.

At step two, the ALJ must assess the medical severity of the claimant's impairments; an error in identifying a non-severe impairment is harmless when the ALJ proceeds through the remaining steps and considers that impairment later.

Blackmon v. Barnhart · filed 2010-06-30(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must “consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the ALJ finds that the claimant has a severe impairment, the ALJ must proceed to step three; if, however, the claimant does not have a severe impairment, the claimant is found to be not disabled. See id. ... The Court is persuaded by the reasoning of these decisions and agrees that, in this case, any legal error made at step two does not require reversal. Even assuming that the ALJ legally erred when he determined that Plaintiff’s borderline intellectual functioning, depression, and peripheral neuropathy were non-severe, such an omission did not prejudice Plaintiff because the ALJ specifically found that Plaintiff’s HIV infection was a seizure impairment, AR at 15, 21, and therefore continued to consider the remaining steps in the sequential analysis, see id. at 15-21.

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to consider the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments; an error in omitting an impairment at that step may be harmless when the ALJ considers it in the remaining steps.

Blackmon v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-30(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must “consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the ALJ finds that the claimant has a severe impairment, the ALJ must proceed to step three; if, however, the claimant does not have a severe impairment, the claimant is found to be not disabled. ... The Court finds that any alleged error at step two does not require reversal in this case. ... the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have each held that alleged errors at step two do not necessarily require reversal so long as the ALJ considered the omitted impairment(s) in evaluating the remaining steps in the sequential analysis.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits basic work activities; an impairment with only a minimal effect may be found non-severe at Step Two.

Zettelmier v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-14(c)

Substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s determination that Zettelmier’s kidney impairment and right-eye limitations did not “significantly limit” her ability to do basic work activities, or else had only a “minimal effect” on her ability to perform such activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (c); SSR 96-3p; SSR 85-28; see also Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). Indeed, the record reflects that Zettelmier fully regained useful vision in her right eye. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in rejecting these claimed impairments as “non-severe” at Step Two of the sequential disability analysis. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the adjudicator to determine whether an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits basic work activities, considering the impairments singly and in combination.

Abed v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-24(c)

If you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled. We will not consider your age, education, and work experience. ... An impairment or combination of impairments can be found not severe only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on individual’s ability to work, and the adjudicator must consider the combined effect of all impairments. ... The ALJ’s failure to make any severity findings at all about the effect of these impairments, either singly or in combination with the impairments found to be severe, was legal error.

At step two, the regulation requires the adjudicator to determine whether each identified impairment is severe or not severe, but an omitted explicit severity finding does not require remand when the adjudicator proceeds to later steps and the decision rests on the claimant's severe impairments and residual functional capacity.

Herrera v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner · filed 2010-12-30(a)(4)(ii)

Herrera is correct that, at step two of the five step analysis, the adjudicator must determine whether any identified impairments are “severe” or “not severe.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c). However, this case did not turn on a finding that Herrera’s impairments were not severe at step two; rather, the ALJ concluded that Herrera was not disabled because, despite his severe impairments, he retained the residual functional capacity to do other work. Therefore, the ALJ’s failure to assess the severity of Herrera’s anxiety or learning impairments at step two is not a basis for remand.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires an ALJ to deny a claim at step two when the claimant's impairment or set of impairments is not severe.

Delafontaine v SSA · filed 2011-01-07(a)(4)(ii)

At Step 2 , an ALJ determines the “medical severity of [a claimant’s] impairments” and will deny any claim if an impairment, or set of impairments is not “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(2).

At step two, the regulation directs the ALJ to deny a claim when an impairment or set of impairments is not severe, meaning it does not significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Young v. SSA · filed 2011-09-15(a)(4)(ii)

At Step 2, an ALJ determines the "medical severity of [a claimant's] impairment(s)" and will deny any claim if an impairment, or set of impairments is not "severe." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). Impairments are deemed "severe" if they "significantly limit[] [the] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." Id. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) treats step two as a threshold severity screen; a finding of a severe impairment does not itself dictate the claimant’s RFC limitations, which are assessed before step four.

Anderson v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-10(c)

To the extent plaintiff argues, based upon step two severity findings, that reaching and neck movement limitations were somehow mandated beyond what the ALJ set forth in his RFC, the court disagrees. ... It is prior to step four, when making an RFC determination, that an ALJ decides the extent to which symptoms related to an impairment would limit an individual’s ability to work.

At the second step, an impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Deanna Tweedy v. Css · filed 2011-12-01(a)(4)(ii)

First, the ALJ did not err in determining that Tweedy’s alleged hand impairment was “non-severe” because substantial evidence in the record supports a finding that this impairment did not significantly limit her ability to do basic work activities, or had only a “minimal effect” on her ability to perform such activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c); see also Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005).

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Matrunich v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2012-04-27(c)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Matrunich’s knee arthritis was not severe. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a). The x-ray and medical evidence did not reveal an impairment that significantly limited Matrunich’s ability to do basic work activities.

At step two, a claimant has a severe impairment only when it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Henry v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-10(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. ... The ALJ’s reference to a “nonsevere. impairment” was made in the context of his decision to discount the assessment of Plaintiffs treating orthopedist, Dr. Richard Zogby, and was not mean to suggest that Plaintiffs back impairment did not ... meet the severity test set forth at step two of the sequential evaluation process. ... As such, this Court finds that the ALJ properly determined that Plaintiffs degenerative disc disease was a severe impairment and that the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Zogby’s assessment concerning the nature and extent of the limitations imposed by that impairment was supported by substantial evidence and in accord with applicable law.

At step two, the Commissioner must evaluate the claimant’s symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings to determine whether a medically determinable impairment exists.

O'Neill v. Astrue · filed 2013-05-06(a)(4)(h)

The Commissioner first must evaluate the claimant’s pertinent symptoms, signs and laboratory findings to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(h), 416.920(a)(4)(h).

At step two of the disability determination, the ALJ must evaluate the severity of the applicant’s impairment or combination of impairments.

Angevine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-10-16(a)(4)(ii)

Step two of the five-step sequential process by which an ALJ determines whether an applicant is disabled requires the ALJ to evaluate the severity of an applicant’s impairment or combination of impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to assess impairment severity at step two and allows the disability evaluation to proceed when at least one impairment is severe.

Schults v. Colvin · filed 2014-02-27(a)(4)(h)

The second step in the disability evaluation process requires the ALJ to consider the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(h); ... If the ALJ finds that at least one of the claimant’s alleged impairments is severe in nature, the claim survives the step two screening process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... For this reason, courts have consistently ... held that an ALJ does not commit reversible error when he or she decides that some of claimant’s impairments are not severe, but finds that other impairments are severe and proceeds with his or her analysis.

Section 404.1520(c) makes Step Two a severity screen, and an erroneous failure to find an impairment severe is harmless when the ALJ considers the impairment later in the sequential evaluation.

Williams v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-06(c)

At Step Two of the five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ considers whether a claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... Thus, even if Plaintiffs anxiety/panic disorder should have been considered severe at Step Two, any error was harmless because the ALJ considered that limitation later in the sequential evaluation process.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment; severity requires a significant limitation in basic work activities lasting at least 12 consecutive months.

Reutov v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-06(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... To establish severity, the evidence must show the diagnosed impairment significantly limited the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities for at least 12 consecutive months. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... In this case, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs degenerative disc impairment did not cause significant vocational limitations for at least 12 consécutive months and, therefore, it was a non-severe impairment. (T at 27). This Court finds that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairments are severe; this is a threshold inquiry, and the ALJ must proceed to later steps and consider all impairments once at least one severe impairment is found.

Fletcher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-03-26(a)(4)(h)

At step two of the sequential analysis, an ALJ determines whether a claimant’s impairment(s), individually or in combination, are severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(h), 416.920(a)(4)(h). The regulations do not require the ALJ to designate each impairment as “severe” or “non-severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(h), 416.920(a)(4)(h). Rather, the severity standard at step two is a threshold inquiry, and as long as a claimant has at least one severe impairment, or combination of impairments, the ALJ must proceed beyond step two and consider all impairments at the remaining steps of the evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523. Thus, if the ALJ finds that a claimant has at least one severe impairment, the only remaining issue is what limitations, if any, result from the impairment.

At step two, the ALJ evaluates whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment; misclassifying an impairment as non-severe is harmless when at least one other severe impairment is found and the sequential evaluation continues.

Chabot v SSA · filed 2014-05-20(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step of the sequential analysis, the ALJ considers the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments. If the ALJ finds that the claimant does not have a medically severe impairment, then he or she will find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... This court has consistently held, however, that an error in describing a given impairment as non-severe is harmless so long as the ALJ found at least one severe impairment and progressed to the next step of the sequential evaluation.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment; if the claimant has none, the claimant is not disabled.

McDonough v. U.S. Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2014-06-23(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step of the sequential analysis, the ALJ considers the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments. If the ALJ finds that the claimant does not have a medically severe impairment, he or she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Because the ALJ found a severe impairment and continued through the sequential analysis, any error here was harmless.

At step two, § 404.1520 treats severity as a threshold inquiry, so an error is generally harmless when at least one impairment is severe and all impairments are considered at later steps.

Herring v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-29(c)

Generally, an error at step two is harmless because it is a threshold test. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)-(g).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do work activities; an impairment posing no vocational limitations requires no further analysis in assessing residual functional capacity.

Mendez v. Colvin · filed 2014-10-21(c)

As for Mr. Mendez’s obesity, ... She determined, however, that his obesity was not a severe impairment because it “did not require treatment or result in vocationally relevant limitations.” Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c) (requiring that an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limit the claimant’s ability to do work activities). ... the ALJ’s finding that his obesity posed no vocational limitations obviated the need for further analysis of Mr. Mendez’s obesity in assessing his RFC, see id. at 1065 n.3 (explaining that an ALJ’s finding at step two that an impairment poses no restriction to the claimant’s work activities obviates the need for further analysis at step four); see also Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 683-84 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that obesity without attending functional limitations was adequately considered by ALJ even though it was not expressly incorporated into RFC). ... Thus, the ALJ properly evaluated Mr. Mendez’s impairments and credibility in assessing his RFC.

At step two, § 404.1520 treats an impairment as severe only if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, and an impairment with no more than a minimal effect is not severe.

Berry v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-24(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At Step Two, the ALJ must consider whether a medically determinable impairment is “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is one which “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Basic work activities include physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying or handling; capacities for seeing, hearing and speaking; understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions; use of judgment; responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers and usual work situations; and dealing with changes in a routine work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b). If the impairment would have no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work, it is not severe.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner at Step Two to determine whether an impairment is severe, and defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Cowles v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-24(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At Step Two, the ALJ must consider whether a medically determinable impairment is “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant's ability to conduct basic work activities.

Jimmeson v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-20(c)

Impairments are considered severe when they significantly limit a plaintiffs “ability to conduct basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(a) establishes a five-step disability evaluation, and its Step Two severity inquiry is only a de minimis screen that should not end the process when the impairment’s effect on basic work activities is unclear.

Kessler v. SSA · filed 2017-04-25(a)

Step Two operates as a screening mechanism to identify those medically determinable impairments that could affect the claimant’s ability to work. ... The screening mechanism is “no more than a de minimis policy” so that “‘[i]f an adjudicator is unable to determine clearly the effect of an impairment or combination of impairments on the individual’s ability to do basic work activities, the sequential evaluation process should not end with the not severe evaluation step.’”

Section 404.1520(c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Baron v. Social Security · filed 2017-08-21(c)

An impairment is “severe” when it “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... In other words, “the Step 2 severity requirement is . . . a de minimis policy.”

At step two, the ALJ considers the medical severity of the claimant's impairments; an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Bice v. Colvin · filed 2017-10-25(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At the second step of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ is to “consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A “severe” impairment is one which “significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ at Step Two to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment, meaning an impairment with more than a minimal impact on work-related activities, and the claimant bears the burden of proof.

Morse v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2017-11-09(c)

At Step Two of the sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether a claimant's impairments are severe. See 20 C .F.R. § 404.1520(c). While “severity is not an onerous requirement for the claimant to meet…it is also not a toothless standard.” Wright v. Colvin, 789 F.3d 847, 855 (8th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). To be severe, an impairment only needs to have more than a minimal impact on a claimant's ability to perform work-related activities. See Social Security Ruling 96-3p. The claimant has the burden of proof of showing he suffers from a medically severe impairment at Step Two. See Mittlestedt v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 847, 852 (8th Cir.2000).

Section 404.1520 makes step two a threshold inquiry: an impairment is severe when it significantly limits basic work activities, and the sequential evaluation proceeds when at least one severe impairment is found.

Allen v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-23(a)(4), (c)

A severe impairment is an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). The Commissioner’s regulations define basic work activities as the abilities and aptitudes to do most jobs and in analyzing step two of the sequential evaluation process, the Commissioner considers a claimant’s “(1) Physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling; (2) Capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking; (3) Understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions; (4) Use of judgment; (5) Responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations; and (6) Dealing with changes in a routine work setting.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522(b). “Step two is a threshold inquiry.” McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir. 1986). Only claims based on the most trivial impairments may be rejected, and an impairment is not severe only if the abnormality is so slight and its effect so minimal that it would clearly not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work. Id.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to consider whether the claimant has a severe impairment at step two of the disability evaluation.

Wilkinson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2018-11-15(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to consider the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1520(c); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-3p. While the claimant bears the burden of demonstrating that an impairment is severe, the burden “at this stage of the analysis is not great.”

Section 404.1520(c) defines an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, governing the step-two severity determination.

Davila v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-11(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” if it significantly limits an individual’s “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). “[A] claim may be denied at step two only if the claimant’s impairments ‘do not have more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s physical or mental abilities to perform basic work activities.’” ... Here, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding, and the ALJ’s finding was based upon a thorough review of the medical record available at the time.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable severe impairment, meaning one that significantly limits basic work activities.

Gayle A. Bombard v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-03-11(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two, the ALJ determines based on the record evidence whether the claimant has one or more medically determinable impairments that are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(ii). An impairment or a combination of impairments is severe at Step Two if it “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. § 404.1520(c). ... In sum, Bombard has not shown that the ALJ erred in his Step Two determination with regard to her osteoarthritis.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments.

Edwards v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-22(c)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether Edwards has an impairment or a combination of impairments that are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Here, substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s finding that Edwards’s depression was not severe.

Section 404.1520(a) requires a five-step disability evaluation, including consideration of impairment severity at step two, and a step-two omission is harmless only when later RFC analysis accounts for the omitted impairment’s functional limitations.

Greenley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-22(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step, the SSA considers “the medical severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... This same reasoning applies even if an ALJ fails to discuss whether certain impairments are severe or non-severe at the second step (which is the case here), as long as the limitations caused by these impairments are adequately assessed later in the process. ... If the ALJ’s RFC determination adequately accounts for the functional limitations attributable to an erroneously disregarded impairment, then the error at step two will not make a difference to the outcome because the RFC would be the same either way. However, the step two error cannot be dismissed as harmless if the RFC finding omits the claimant’s relevant functional limitations, and a remand would be necessary to correct the analysis.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether a claimant’s medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits basic work activities; impairments that do not meet that threshold are not severe.

Graham v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, the ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If a claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits her ability to do basic work activities, such impairment or impairments are not severe and the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Step two of the evaluation states that a claimant is not disabled if his impairments are not ‘severe.’”).

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to assess the severity of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, and § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment or combination as non-severe when it does not significantly limit basic work activities.

Graham v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(a)(4)(ii) (c)

At step two, the ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If a claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits her ability to do basic work activities, such impairment or impairments are not severe and the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Step two of the evaluation states that a claimant is not disabled if his impairments are not ‘severe.’”).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the SSA to consider the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments at step two of the sequential evaluation.

Pfeifer v. Saul · filed 2019-06-27(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step, the SSA considers “the medical severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). It is a claimant’s burden to demonstrate a severe medically determinable impairment at step two of the sequential evaluation, but that burden is not difficult to meet and any doubt about whether the claimant met her burden is resolved in favor of the claimant. See Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ at step two to decide whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment, and a finding that none exists ends the disability inquiry.

Steffes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-07-23(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. ... An ALJ may find an impairment or combination of impairments is not severe “only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.” ... Given the de-minimis standard of the step-two inquiry, the ALJ erred in concluding Plaintiff’s pancreatitis was not severe.

Section 404.1520 requires a step-two determination of whether an impairment is severe, and an impairment is non-severe only when it is a slight abnormality with no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Reece v. Commissioner Of Social Security · filed 2019-07-24(a)(4)(ii), (c)

In the second step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). Under applicable regulations, an impairment is severe if it “significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.922(a). Under Fifth Circuit binding precedent, “[a]n impairment can be considered as not severe only if it is a slight abnormality [having] such minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education or work experience.” Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378, 391 (5th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added) (quoting Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099, 1101 (5th Cir. 1985)).