20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

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 basic work activities; the court held that the ALJ erred at that step by failing to call a medical advisor or expert regarding the onset of the claimant’s depression.

Speight v. Apfel · filed 2000-08-01(c)

When the claimant is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, the ALJ, in Step Two, must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments significantly limiting her from performing basic work activities; if not, a finding of nondisability is made and the claim is denied. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Accordingly, the ALJ erred at Step Two of the sequential analysis when he failed to call a medical advisor or expert to testify regarding the onset date of plaintiffs depression.

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.

Vick v. Halter · filed 2001-03-15(c)

A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits your 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 physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Morrison v. Barnhart · filed 2003-07-03(c)

Thus, by definition, plaintiffs fibromyalgia significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do .basic work activities.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a finding of no severe impairment when an impairment or combination does not significantly limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Back v. Barnhart · filed 2003-04-11(c)

Step two of the five-step disability inquiry states: “If you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits you physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment. ...” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987) (upholding the validity of the “severe impairment” requirement).

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

Cobb v. Barnhart · filed 2003-12-18(c)

The second part of the Listing, therefore, imposes a less stringent requirement than that imposed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Section 404.1520 sets forth the five-step sequential process by which a claimant’s disability is evaluated. Section 404.1520(c) defines “severe impairment” to require that the impairment or combination of impairments significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

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

Diehl v. Barnhart · filed 2005-02-07(c)

“Severe impairment” is defined in section 404.1520(c) as having an “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”

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

Cefalu v. Barnhart · filed 2005-09-06(c)

A “severe” mental impairment is defined under the Social Security Act as an impairment that significantly limits a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities, including understanding, carrying out and remembering simple instructions, using judgment, responding appropriately to supervisors, co-workers, and usual work situations, and dealing with changes in a routine work setting. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(b). ... Therefore, the ALJ’s finding that Cefalu does not possess a severe mental impairment is supported by substantial evidence.

An impairment is severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Masch v. Barnhart · filed 2005-12-20(c)

. An. impairment 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); 1521(a).

At step two, a claimant is not disabled if he has no severe impairment or combination of impairments.

Munzie v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-03(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ discussed in detail his reasons for finding Munzie was not disabled under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Munzie had no severe impairment or combination of impairments.

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

Winston v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-21(c)

The second part of the Listing, therefore, imposes a less stringent requirement than that imposed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Section 404.1520 sets forth the five-step sequential process by which a claimant’s disability is evaluated. Section 404.1520(c) defines “severe impairment” to require that the impairment or combination of impairments significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

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

Allsbury v. Barnhart · filed 2006-07-13(c)

Under the applicable regulation, a moderate mental impairment is deemed “severe.” A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits [the individual’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (2005). Accordingly, ALJ Williams could not have found that plaintiffs nonexertional mental impairments do not significantly affect her residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1520(c) permits ending the sequential evaluation at Step 2 only when the claimant has not made a colorable showing of a severe impairment; if nonseverity is not clearly established, evaluation must continue.

Teves v. McMahon · filed 2007-02-01(c)

The regulations permit the termination of a claim at Step 2 when the applicant fails to make a colorable showing of a severe impairment. ... The burden on the claimant at Step 2, however, is not onerous. ... If such a finding is not clearly established by medical evidence ... adjudication must continue through the sequential evaluation process.” ... However, given the uncertainty of the medical evidence regarding the effects of Teves’ mental retardation, when considered in combination with the physical ailments the ALJ found credibly supported by the record, it was error to make that finding at Step 2 of the sequential step analysis.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Stutts v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-13(c)

The second part of the Listing, therefore, imposes a less stringent requirement than that imposed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Section 404.1520 sets forth the five-step sequential process by which a claimant’s disability is evaluated. Section 404.1520(c) defines “severe impairment” to require that the impairment or combination of impairments significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

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

Jones v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-25(c)

The second part of the Listing, therefore, imposes a less stringent requirement than that imposed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Section 404.1520 sets forth the five-step sequential process by which a claimant’s disability is evaluated. Section 404.1520(c) defines “severe impairment” to require that the impairment or combination of impairments significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

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

Pallas v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-22(c)

In order to establish that he had a medically severe impairment, Pallas bore the burden of proving that he suffered from “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit[ed his] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... We therefore conclude that the ALJ’s finding that Pallas did not suffer from a severe mental impairment was not erroneous.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a severe impairment, meaning an impairment or combination that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Despins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-12-14(c)

The Social Security regulations interpret § 423(d)(1)(A) to require the existence of a “severe” impairment—that is, “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant’s] ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to establish that an impairment is severe before disability can be found.

Ferguson v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-17(c)

Ferguson presented evidence that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, but he presented scant evidence that this condition constituted a severe impairment as required for a finding of disability under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520 treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a person's mental abilities to perform basic work activities.

Hemminger v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-15

An impairment is considered “severe” when it significantly limits a person’s mental abilities to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

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.

Martise v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-06(c)

A "severe impairment is defined as one which 'significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.'" Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)).

Section 404.1520(c) places on the claimant the burden of proving that an impairment is severe.

Dolbow v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-28(c)

Plaintiff bore the burden of proving that his anxiety was severe. ... There is no indication that plaintiffs anxiety was “severe” within the meaning of the statute.

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

Rivera v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-29(c)

A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits your 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 physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Thorps v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-09(c)

A severe impairment is an “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [one’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; mild diabetic neuropathy without significant physical limitations is non-severe.

Agan v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-07(c)

A “severe impairment is defined as one which ‘significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.’ ” Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)). ... The ALJ adequately developed the record concerning Agan’s diabetes mellitus and diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Agan’s sensory deficits that were consistent with diabetic peripheral neuropathy were described as “mild”. AR 400. Agan took medication for his peripheral neuropathy and it was never the focus of any treatment after surgery. There is no evidence that he had significant physical limitations as a result of peripheral neuropathy. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that Agan’s diabetic peripheral neuropathy was a non-severe impairment and it did not require further development by the ALJ.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a severe impairment that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, considered in light of the claimant’s age, education, and work experience.

Frank Seeley, Jr. v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2015-01-23(c)

The Social Security regulations interpret “disability” to require the existence of a “severe impairment”—one that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” in light of that individual’s age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

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

Guerra v. Colvin · filed 2015-10-14(c)

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); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 139 (1987). Guerra did not establish that any of these conditions was a severe impairment during the relevant period. ... Substantial evidence therefore supports the ALJ’s exclusion of carpal tunnel syndrome, polycystic ovary disorder, and chronic diarrhea from the list of Guerra’s claimed severe impairments.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only if it significantly limits a claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Rowe v. Colvin · filed 2016-05-12(c)

In order for Rowe’s carpal tunnel syndrome to qualify as a “severe impairment,” it must “significantly limit[ ][her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). While Rowe certainly appears to have carpal tunnel syndrome, she fails to identify any persuasive medical evidence that would mandate a finding by the hearing officer that her carpal tunnel constitutes a “severe impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Cook v. Berryhill · filed 2017-11-22(c)

A “severe” impairment is one “which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see also Id. §§ 404.1521(a), 416.921(a). “Basic work activities” refers to “the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” Id. §§ 404.1521(b), 416.921(b).

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

Petry v. Berryhill · filed 2017-11-17(c)

A “severe” impairment is one “which significantly limits [one’s] ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

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

Butters v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-30(c)

Finally, the record does not support a finding that Butters’ headaches constitute a severe impairment, i.e. one “significantly limits [Butters’] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.’” Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24 (2003) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)).

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

Allen v. Saul · filed 2019-08-26(c)

A “severe” impairment is one “which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; a finding that an impairment is severe while imposing no corresponding work limitations is internally contradictory.

Billups v. Saul · filed 2019-11-19(c)

At the outset, it is important to understand what a severe impairment is: “[a] severe impairment is one that significantly limits an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities.” Million v. Astrue, 260 F. App’x 918, 922 (7th Cir. 2008); see also, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); SSR 16-3P. ... A severe impairment, such as the ALJ found Plaintiff’s MS here, that causes no limitations is internally contradictory and not supported by substantial evidence. We remand for this reason.

At step two, the regulation requires an ALJ to identify at least one severe impairment to continue the sequential evaluation, but failure to label a particular impairment severe is harmless when other severe impairments are found and all impairments are considered.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-22(c)

Lastly, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in not identifying bipolar disorder as a severe impairment at step 2. The failure to designate bipolar disorder as a severe impairment, by itself, is not an error requiring remand. At step 2 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has one or more severe impairments. This is only a “threshold issue,” and, as long as the ALJ finds at least one severe impairment, he must continue on with the analysis. And, at step 4, he must consider the combined effect of all impairments, severe and non-severe. Therefore, a failure to designate a particular impairment as “severe” at step 2 does not matter to the outcome of the case as long as the ALJ finds that the claimant has at least one severe impairment.

Section 404.1520(c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work functions; a severe impairment does not by itself establish inability to perform medium work.

Lemon v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-28(c)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument on reply, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s “severe impairments” included “major joint dysfunction in the knees bilaterally and left elbow” does not automatically mandate a finding that Plaintiff cannot perform medium work. Rather, a severe impairment is one that “significantly limits” the ability to perform work functions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

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, and the evaluation must continue once one severe impairment is found.

Falin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-09(c)

A "severe impairment" is defined as an 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). Upon determining that a claimant has one severe impairment, the ALJ must continue with the remaining steps in the disability evaluation. See Maziarz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240, 244 (6th Cir. 1987). ... Once the ALJ determines that a claimant suffers from a severe impairment, the fact that the ALJ fails to classify a separate condition—in this instance, Plaintiff's migraines—as a severe impairment, does not constitute reversible error. Id.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Leonard P. v. Saul · filed 2020-03-12(c)

The ALJ must follow five steps in evaluating a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... Second, if a claimant does not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, then she does not have a severe impairment and is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

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

McClintock v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-16(c)

A "severe impairment" is an 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). An impairment or combination of impairments is not "severe" if it has no more than a minimal impact on an individual's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522; Social Security Ruling (SSR) 85-28, 96-3p. Thus, to establish that her impairments are "severe," Plaintiff must show that her impairments more than minimally impact her ability to perform basic work activities for the twelve-month durational requirements under the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522.

Section 404.1520 makes step 2 a threshold inquiry requiring at least one severe impairment, after which the evaluation continues and the combined effects of all severe and non-severe impairments must be considered.

Moyer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-20

The failure to designate CKD as a severe impairment, by itself, is not an error requiring remand. At step 2 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has one or more severe impairments. This is only a “threshold issue,” and, as long as the ALJ finds at least one severe impairment, he must continue with the analysis. And, at step 4, he must consider the combined effect of all impairments, severe and non-severe. Therefore, a failure to designate a particular impairment as “severe” at step 2 does not matter to the outcome of the case as long as the ALJ finds that the claimant has at least one severe impairment. See Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir. 2012)(citing Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923, 927-928 (7th Cir. 2010)).

Section 404.1520(c) makes step two a threshold inquiry requiring the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; absent one, the claimant must be found not disabled.

Pacl v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-04(c)

At the second step of the sequential analysis, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c), 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c). A “severe impairment” is a medically determinable impairment that: (1) has more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to perform physical or mental work; and (2) is “expected to result in death [or] to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 404.1522, 416.909, 416.922; see Salmi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 744 F.2d 685, 691 (6th Cir. 1985) (“‘An impairment can be considered as not severe only if it is a slight abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work.’” (quoting Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 920 (11th Cir. 1984))). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment, or combination of impairments, the regulations direct the ALJ to find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work.

Alimorong v. Saul · filed 2020-05-11(c)

An impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Reviewing the medical records and Mitchel’s hearing testimony, the court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Mitchel’s TBI is not severe. See Burmester, 920 F.3d at 510. ... but lacks any objective evidence that the condition more than minimally limits his ability to work, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities to be considered severe for disability purposes.

Castille v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2020-06-10(c)

A severe impairment is defined as “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” and is required for a disability finding. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

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

Lee v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2020-09-09(c)

A severe impairment is an “impairment or combination of impairments which “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it limits a claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Blackman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(c)

The Court also agrees with the ALJs determination that Plaintiff has severe impairments, including major depressive disorder, anxiety learning disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and hearing loss. R at 437; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (noting that a severe impairment “limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities”).

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant to show an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities, and the court upheld the finding that Stafford’s impairments were not severe at step two.

Stafford v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2020-10-01

To obtain disability benefits, Stafford must demonstrate that she has an “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... Though the ALJ ought not have afforded “substantial weight” to the opinions of state-agency experts who did not review evidence in the relevant timeframe, his decision remains supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Stafford does not point to any specific evidence pre-dating her date last insured that would support a determination that her limitation was severe, even had the state-agency experts reviewed it. And even if the ALJ had afforded these opinions no weight, substantial evidence in the form of Dr. Kwock’s opinion would still support his step-two decision.

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant to have a severe medically determinable impairment at step two, and the severity threshold is low, screening out only de minimis claims.

Thorne v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step 2, an ALJ considers whether a claimant suffers from any severe impairments. For a claimant to be found disabled, an ALJ must find that a claimant has a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is an “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [his or her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). “[T]he standard for a severe impairment is not demanding,” ... Thus, while the inclusion of malingering as a severe impairment was unusual, it is not improper.

Section 404.1520(c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, and a severe impairment must be reflected through associated limitations in the RFC.

Crosby v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-20(c)

Here, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s cervical DDD is a “severe impairment” establishes, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521, that such condition is “shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” The ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s cervical DDD impairment is “severe,” implies such impairment “significantly limits” Plaintiff’s ability to perform “basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). As such, upon finding Plaintiff’s cervical DDD is a severe impairment, the ALJ was required to incorporate into the RFC determination in the second ALJ decision some limitations associated with such impairment, but failed to do so.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; an impairment with only a minimal effect on work ability is not severe.

Starnes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-09(c)

As previously mentioned, at step two of the sequential analysis, an ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment. An impairment is “severe” if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). An impairment is not severe “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.” Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099, 1101 (5th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).

Section 404.1520(c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; an impairment causing more than minimal functional limitations meets this de minimis standard.

Savastano v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-09(c)

The regulations establish that claimants must have a “severe impairment,” which is defined as a condition “which significantly limits [an individual’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). “An impairment is severe when it causes more than minimal functional limitations.” Babb v. Colvin, No. 5:13-CV-868 GLS/ESH, 2014 WL 4684883 n.10 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2014); see also Davis ex rel. Maitland v. Colvin, No. 6:11-CV-0658 MAD/DEP, 2013 WL 1183000, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2013) (“[t]he second step requirement … is truly de minimis, and intended only to screen out the truly weakest of cases.”) (citing Dixon v. Shalala, 54 F.3d 1019, 1030 (2d Cir. 1995)). ... Savastano’s migraine headaches cause more than minimal functional limitations and have a significant impact on her ability to work. Although ALJ Solomon made cursory reference to Savastano’s headaches – describing her “history of headaches for more than eight years” – he erred in failing to incorporate this condition at step two. A.R. 14.

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

Holmstrom v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-15(c)

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). An impairment or combination of impairments is “not severe” when medical evidence establishes “only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities which would have no more than a minimal effect on [the claimant's] ability to work even if the [claimant's] age, education, or work experience were specifically considered (i.e., the [claimant's] impairment(s) has no more than a minimal effect on his or her physical or mental ability(ies) to perform basic work activities).” SSR 85–28, 1985 WL 56856, at *3 (1985). As the Commissioner argues, ALJ Haaversen did not find that plaintiff had no impairments prior to November 20, 2013, only that they did not constitute “severe” impairments during that timeframe. Commissioner’s Brief [10-1], p. 14. The evidence in the record, including the July 2013 MRI, indicated that plaintiff had degenerative joint disease and RA. However, “a diagnosis alone is insufficient to establish a severe impairment as instead, the plaintiff must show that the medically determinable impairments significantly limit the ability to engage in basic work activities”. Durgan v. Astrue, 2013 WL 1122568, *3 (N.D.N.Y.), adopted, 2013 WL 1104143 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). As set forth above, there is no evidence prior to November 20, 2013 demonstrating the severity of plaintiff’s limitations.

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

Sabljakovic v. Saul · filed 2021-03-01(c)

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations, found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, establishing a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine disability. ... A severe impairment is one which significantly limits a person’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Mindful of these standards, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s failure to deem Plaintiff’s knee problems a severe impairment.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits basic work activities before a claimant can be found disabled.

Alexander v. Saul · filed 2021-12-13(c)

§ 404.1520(c) clearly states that claimants are not disabled if they do not have a singular severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits their physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Similarly, § 404.1523(c) provides that judges “will determine that you are not disabled” if they “do not find that you have a medically severe combination of impairments.” As such, plaintiff is mistaken; the ALJ does not need to account for all non-severe impairments. Rather, the ALJ must account for either individually severe impairments or a medically severe combination of impairments. The ALJ has done so.

An impairment is severe when it significantly limits a claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Jordan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-28(c)

A “severe” impairment is one that “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

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

Hrab v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-08(c)

A “severe impairment” is defined as an “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522(a) (defining non-severe impairments).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; a diagnosis alone is insufficient.

Mallaley v. Commisioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(c)

A severe impairment or combination of impairments is one which significantly limits the physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... There is, however, no evidence of record that plaintiff's diabetic neuropathy limits plaintiffs ability to do work and this diagnosis, standing alone, is insufficient to establish that the impairment is severe. ... Therefore, the ALJ committed no error in failing to categorize plaintiffs diabetic neuropathy as either a “severe” or “nonsevere” impairment. This decision is supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits a claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, and failure to classify an additional condition as severe is not reversible error once a severe impairment has been found.

Gleason v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-03(c)

Further, at step two of the sequential evaluation, a plaintiff must show that he suffers from a “severe impairment” in order to warrant a finding of disability. ... A “severe impairment” is defined as an 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) and 416.920(c). ... “Once the ALJ determines that a claimant suffers from a severe impairment, the fact that the ALJ failed to classify a separate condition as a severe impairment does not constitute reversible error.” ... An ALJ can consider non-severe impairments in determining the RFC. ... “The fact that some of [the claimant’s] impairments were not deemed to be severe at step two is therefore legally irrelevant.”

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as non-severe when it does not significantly impact a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Binner v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-04(c)

An impairment is not considered severe if it does not significantly impact a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Celestaine v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-04(c)

A severe impairment is defined by the regulations 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). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s assignment of plantar fasciitis as non-severe.

At Step 2, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Huto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-25(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.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (c), 416.920 (c); compare 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522 (a), 416.922 (a) (defining non-severe impairment as one that “does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities”).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Tucker v. SSA · filed 2023-07-27(c)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), an ALJ can only find that an impairment or combination of impairments are severe if they “significantly limit[] your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... The above indicates that the ALJ did properly analyze Tucker’s lumbar condition in her evaluation of Tucker’s application. ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to not list Tucker’s lumbar condition as a severe medical impairment and any error in not listing it as such is not enough to constitute reversible error.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires a claimant to show a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that meets the duration requirement at step two.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-12(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step in the sequential evaluation process a claimant must demonstrate he suffers from a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement . . . or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); ... Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff had severe impairments—an L1 compression fracture status post L1 kyphoplasty, status post T12-L2 fusion, and obesity. ... Therefore, the ALJ’s failure to find additional severe impairments at step two is legally irrelevant.

Section 404.1520(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities to be considered severe.

Morris v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-22(c)

To warrant being considered a severe impairment, the Act requires that the impairment significantly limit an individual’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920c, 404.1522(a)–(b), 416.922. An impairment is not severe if it is a slight abnormality or combination of slight abnormalities that have no more than a minimal effect on the ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522(a), 416.922.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits an individual’s ability to do basic work activities.

Russell v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-09(c)

An impairment is severe “if it ‘significantly limits’ an individual’s ‘ability to do basic work activities.’ ” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only if it significantly limits a claimant’s mental or physical abilities to do basic work activities.

Tharp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-17(c)

An impairment is not considered to be “severe” if it does not “significantly limit” a claimant’s mental or physical abilities to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c). Plaintiff contends “the ALJ err[ed] by failing to note that ARNP Armstrong’s testing confirmed the presence of Epstein-Barr virus, which can cause chronic fatigue.” Dkt. 13 at 12 (citing AR 613). The ALJ found Epstein-Barr syndrome a non-severe MDI because the evidence “does not establish that it results in functional limitations.” AR 1570 (citing AR 536, 589, 915–16).3 Neither Plaintiff’s assertion that Epstein-Barr virus “can cause chronic fatigue” (Dkt. 13 at 12) nor ARNP Armstrong’s notation that Plaintiff was “positive” for the virus (AR 613) establish the virus results in further limitations on Plaintiff’s ability to do basic work activities. Plaintiff has therefore not established error in the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Gaffield’s opinion.

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

Shykes v. King · filed 2025-01-27(c)

The definition of a severe impairment is “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), 416.920(c).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it has more than a minimal effect on the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities.

(SS) Villegas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-06(c)

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). “An impairment is not severe if it is merely ‘a slight abnormality (or combination of slight abnormalities) that has no more than a minimal effect on the ability to do basic work activities.’” ... “The step two severity determination is “merely a threshold determination of whether the claimant is able to perform his past work. Thus, a finding that a claimant is severe at step two only raises a prima facie case of a disability.”” ... This was substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff’s elbow condition did not have more than a minimal impact on her ability to perform work-related activities for a consecutive 12-month period.

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

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-11(c)

At Step Two, an impairment or combination of impairments is deemed “severe” if it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); see Miller v. Berryhill, No. 16-CV-06467 (MAT), 2017 WL 4173357, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017). ... Even where Plaintiff met her de minimis burden of proof at Step Two of the sequential analysis for establishing the severity of her mental limitations, this Court finds that the ALJ correctly determined that Plaintiff did not require any accommodation in the RFC for her mental impairments because the record lacked evidence showing any hinderance of Plaintiff’s performance by those limitations. The ALJ, therefore, properly determined that Plaintiff did not have severe mental limitations.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; a diagnosis alone is insufficient.

Antosy v. DUDEK · filed 2025-03-14(c)

A medical diagnosis is insufficient to establish severity at step two; Plaintiff also must present evidence that a limitation significantly limited her ability to do basic work activities. ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination in this respect. ... Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff argues that remand is required because the ALJ improperly determined that her mental impairments are not severe, this Court disagrees.

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

Grimes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-19(c)

However, in reaching this RFC, the ALJ did not address how plaintiff’s severe impairment of “intermittent explosive behavior” significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (a “severe impairment” is defined as an impairment or combination of impairments “which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities”). Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision should be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Section 404.1520(c) requires evidence of a severe impairment; conditions that do not inhibit past relevant work did not satisfy that standard.

Mamie SEBION, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Appellee · filed 1985-03-25(c)

None of the evidence or testimony, including the records of Dr. Laurenzana (Sebion’s treating physician), indicate that Sebion suffers from a severe disability as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) (1984) which would inhibit her from performing her past relevant work.

At step two, a finding that a claimant’s impairment does not significantly limit basic work activities cannot stand when the treating physician’s disability opinion is not contradicted by substantial evidence.

Paulina BLUVBAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1984-03-23(c)

The Secretary has determined that Bluvband’s disability is not such as to limit her ability to perform basic work activities. We reverse this determination since we conclude that the treating physician’s opinion on disability is not contradicted by substantial evidence.

A severe impairment satisfies only the second step of the disability evaluation; it does not by itself establish entitlement to benefits.

Carroll W. SHIPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-02-18(c)

What he overlooks, however, is that having a severe impairment is not a sufficient condition for receiving benefits under the Secretary’s regulations.

Section 404.1520 requires more than a severe impairment for disability benefits; a claimant who retains capacity for gainful work is not disabled.

Guy PEARCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1989-04-06

A severe impairment is a necessary rather than sufficient condition for an award of disability benefits. ... A severely impaired individual is not disabled within the meaning of the statute and implementing regulations if he retains sufficient residual capacity to do gainful work.

At step two, an impairment that is more than a slight abnormality cannot be dismissed under the severity regulation without considering the remaining steps.

Anthony v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary Health and Human Services · filed 1992-02-25(c)

Thus, Stone is not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Yuckert; Stone merely reasons that the regulation cannot be applied to summarily dismiss, without consideration of the remaining steps in the sequential analysis, claims of those whose impairment is more than a slight abnormality.

At the severe impairment step, medically supported conditions controlled by diet and medication did not establish disability.

Maurice R. WILSON, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Appellee · filed 1996-02-15(c)

As the ALJ found, Wilson has not demonstrated that he has a medically severe impairment. Of Wilson’s numerous alleged medical problems, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and ulcers are the only impairments supported by medical evidence in the record. Wilson conceded these problems were controllable by diet and medication. ... Accordingly, they cannot be considered disabling.

Section 404.1520 ends the sequential evaluation when the claimant lacks a severe impairment.

Saviano v. Chater · filed 1997-03-05(c)

Based upon the objective evidence, there is substantial support for the ALJ’s determination that Saviano did not suffer from a “severe impairment” under the third step of the five step inquiry and no further analysis was necessary.

Section 404.1520(c) defines a severe impairment as an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Jerolmon v. Astrue · filed 2012-06-18(c)

More fundamentally, Jerolmon’s contentions, when viewed in the light of the entire record on the point, do not demonstrate a physical “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [his] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” the regulatory definition of “a severe impairment,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), let alone satisfy the governing standard of review by showing that the ALJ’s contrary conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520’s five-step evaluation requires the Commissioner at step five to prove both that the claimant can perform work beyond her past relevant work and that a substantial number of such jobs exist in the national economy.

Tinker v. Barnhart · filed 2002-03-25

Thus, at step five the Commissioner is required to show both that the claimant retains the RFC to perform the exertional demands of work above that required to perform her past relevant work, and that there are in fact a substantial number of jobs in the national economy which the claimant can perform given her RFC.

After a claimant proves that he cannot perform his former job, subsection (f) requires the Secretary to consider physical ability, age, education, and work experience in determining whether he can perform other substantial gainful employment.

ALLEN, William H., Appellant, v. BOWEN, Otis, R., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1989-07-25(f)

Once a claimant has proved that he is unable to perform his former job, however, the burden shifts to the Secretary to prove that there is some other kind of substantial gainful employment that the individual is able to perform. ... The Secretary is to consider such factors as the claimant’s physical ability, age, education and work experience. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At step five, the Secretary bears the burden of showing that a claimant who cannot return to past relevant work can perform other work existing in significant numbers.

Rivera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1993-02-19(f)(1)

Appellant's objection is not based on the existence or numbers of such jobs in the national economy, only the extent to which the evidence supports a finding that she is capable of performing such work. The Secretary bore the burden of proof on this issue. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1); Rosado v. Secretary of HHS, 807 F.2d 292, 294 (1st Cir. 1986).

At step five, § 404.1520(f) shifts the burden to the Commissioner to show that other jobs exist in significant numbers that the claimant can perform, consistent with the claimant’s impairments, functional limitations, and vocational factors.

Francis v. Chater · filed 1997-06-11(f)

When the examiner finds that the claimant is unable to do the work which he or she has done in the past because of severe impairment, the evaluation process then goes on to the fifth step to consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity as it may relate to the complainant’s age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). At this point, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that there are other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy which plaintiff can perform. Such jobs must be consistent with medically determinable impairments, functional limitations, and vocational factors.

At step five, once a claimant shows that he cannot perform his past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to prove that he can perform other jobs existing in the national economy.

Ruiz v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1997-11-13(f)

We agree. Once Ruiz established that he cannot perform his past relevant work because of his impairments, the burden shifted to the Secretary to show that there existed other jobs in the national economy which Ruiz could perform. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). To meet this burden, the Secretary may rely on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines in certain circumstances.

At step five, once a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the Commissioner must show that a significant number of other jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

France v. Apfel · filed 2000-03-13(f)

Once it is established that a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Social Security Administration to establish that a significant number of other jobs are available in the national economy which the claimant can perform.

At Step 5 of the sequential evaluation, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant can perform work other than past relevant work.

Bickford v. Barnhart · filed 2002-12-31(f)

At Step 5, the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than his past relevant work.

Section 404.1520(g) places on the ALJ the burden at step five of showing that a claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Cisneros v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-08(g)

In order to find that a claimant is not disabled at step five, the ALJ bears the burden of showing that the claimant can perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 CFR § 404.1520(g); see Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098–99 (9th Cir. 1999).

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers; if that burden is not met, the claimant is disabled.

Mortimore v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-11(a)(4)(v)

While the claimant has the burden of proof with regard to steps one through four of the sequential analysis, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The Commissioner must show that the claimant is capable of making an adjustment to other work after considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. Id. If the Commissioner fails to meet this burden, then the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(c) is not invalid under the APA when promulgated through the required notice-and-comment procedures.

Bailey v. Sullivan · filed 1989-09-06(c)

The APA requires no more, and we affirm the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ APA challenge to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.-1521, 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(d) requires the Administrative Law Judge to remand a claim to a medical advisor when the claimant raises a mental-impairment issue at the hearing.

Brown v. Bowen · filed 1990-06-29(d)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (“Regulations”) of the revised regulations for evaluation of mental impairments, Plaintiff’s claim was remanded to a medical advisor: Dr. Marianne N. Collins, pshycologist. ... When Plaintiff raised the issue of mental impairment at the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge properly remanded the case to a medical advisor as required.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work based on residual functional capacity and vocational factors; at step five, the Commissioner must support the finding with evidence addressing all of the claimant's limitations.

Works v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2011-03-31(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential process for determining whether a person is disabled. ... If the claimant shows an inability to perform her past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show, in step five, that the claimant has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to do other work in consideration of the claimant’s age, education and past work experience. ... A VE’s testimony has no evidentiary value to support a finding that a claimant can perform jobs in the national economy unless the hypothetical given to the VE by the ALJ reflects all of the claimant’s limitations. ... Thus, the VE’s testimony does not reflect all the limitations found by the ALJ, and does not constitute competent evidence to support the ALJ’s finding at step five that Ms. Works could perform other jobs.

Section 404.1520 sets the sequential disability-evaluation process, including the initial eligibility steps and the shift to the Secretary's burden to show that the claimant can perform other work; its application requires considering additional non-exertional limitations before relying on the medical-vocational guidelines.

Jerry BORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1990-10-22(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f)(1)

However, following the direction of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), the AU considered claimant’s additional non-exertional limitations, which allowed him to work only six hours per shift duration and required a sit/stand option and thus precluded him from performing a full range of sedentary work. Because claimant could not perform a full range of sedentary work, his characteristics did not precisely fit the pattern of the medical vocational guidelines and the AU was required to make a nonguideline determination.

Under § 404.1520, a claimant who can perform past relevant work is not disabled at step four, while the step-five vocational inquiry applies only if past work cannot be performed.

Wren v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1991-03-01(e), (f)

4. If an individual is capable of performing the work he has done in the past, a finding of “not disabled” must be made. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e) (1989). ... 5. If an individual’s impairment precludes him from performing his past work, other factors including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if work can be performed. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f) (1989). ... Her argument is inapposite because the Medical-Vocational Guidelines apply only when the AU reaches step five and finds that the claimant is unable to perform claimant’s past relevant work. ... In the present case, the AU determined at step four that Wren was not disabled and could perform her past relevant work as a seamstress.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through the sequential process, including consideration of all relevant evidence in assessing residual functional capacity and ability to work at steps four and five.

Wyatt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-06-19(e), (f)

Because the Secretary did consider other relevant evidence at steps four and five, the plaintiff's right to an individualized evaluation was preserved. At these steps, the plaintiff's residual functional capacity was assessed in light of all the evidence in the record, and consideration was given to what work, if any, plaintiff could do given his residual functional capacity and his age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1520(f). For the above reasons, we conclude that State of New York is not controlling, and the regulations, which require the exclusive consideration of treadmill test results at step three, should be approved.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential evaluation process for determining disability, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Secretary bearing it at the fifth step.

Gathright v. Shalala · filed 1993-07-22

To regularize the adjudicative process, the Social Security Administration promulgated regulations which establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1990). At the first four levels of the sequential evaluation process, the elaim-ant must show: 1) that he is not engaged in substantial gainful employment; 2) that he has an impairment or combination of impairments severe enough to limit the ability to do basic work activities; and 3) that his impairment meets or equals one of the presumptively disabling impairments listed in the regulations under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (1990). If Plaintiff cannot show that he has met or equalled a listing, he must show at step four that he is unable to perform work he had done in the past. At the fifth step, the burden of proof shifts to the Secretary to show that the claimant is able to perform other substantial gainful activity considering his age, education, and prior work experience. If a determination of disabled or not disabled is found at any step, further inquiry is not required. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1990).

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential disability evaluation and ends the inquiry once the claimant is found disabled at an earlier step.

Lankford v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1991-06-21

As described above, if at any time during the sequential analysis an applicant is found disabled, the inquiry must end without proceeding to the subsequent steps.

Section 404.1520(e) directs a finding of no disability when a claimant can perform past relevant work, while subsection (f) applies when the claimant cannot return to past relevant work and requires evaluation of the claimant’s capacity to perform other work.

Don E. LEGGETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley E. CHATER, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant · filed 1995-10-30(e), (f)

Here, the Commissioner found that Leggett was not disabled under Step IV of the test, which directs a finding that the claimant is not disabled if the claimant’s impairments do not “prevent [the claimant] from doing past relevant work”. ... The mere inability of a claimant to perform certain “requirements of his past job does not mean that he is unable to perform ‘past relevant work’ as that phrase is used in the regulations”; ... rather, the Commissioner may also consider the description of the claimant’s past work as such work is generally performed in the national economy. ... The record contains sufficient evidence to support the Commissioner’s finding that Leggett is capable of performing his past relevant work ... as a cashier as that position is generally performed in the national economy. ... Step V does not apply to Leggett because it is only appropriate in situations when the Commissioner finds that although the claimant is not disabled, the claimant cannot return to any past relevant work.

The sequential evaluation need not proceed to step five when the claimant can still perform past relevant work at step four.

Crane v. Shalala · filed 1996-02-14(f)

This determination made it unnecessary for the ALJ to proceed to the fifth step to determine whether he had the residual functional capacity to perform other work.

Section 404.1520 requires an adjudicator to determine disability through a five-step sequential evaluation.

Gibson-Jones v. Chater · filed 1996-05-14

The Social Security regulations require the factfinder to follow a five-step inquiry to determine whether a claimant is disabled.

Section 404.1520(a) permits the disability review to stop once the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any point; a supported step-four finding of no disability eliminates the need to reach step five.

Constance BREWER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-App · filed 1997-05-29(a)

Because there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding at step four that Ms. Brewer is not disabled, we also agree that no further review is required. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) ("If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at any point in the review, we do not review your claim further.").

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, with the Commissioner bearing the burden at step five to show that the claimant can perform jobs existing in the economy.

Rouleau v. Apfel, SSA · filed 2000-01-28

The ALJ is required to follow a sequential evaluation process when determining if a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1997). The ALJ must determine (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit his physical or mental capacity to perform basic work-related functions; (3) whether the impairment(s) are equivalent to a specific listed impairment; (4) whether the claimant’s impairment(s) prevent him from performing work of the sort he has done in the past; (5) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing other work, given the claimant’s age, education, past work experience and residual functioning capacity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1997). At the fifth step of this process, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that there are jobs in the economy that the claimant can perform.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation: the claimant bears the burden through the past-relevant-work step, and if the claimant cannot perform that work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show other work exists in significant numbers that the claimant can perform.

Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2000-07-25(a), (c), (d), and (f)

In step one, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). If a claimant is found to be engaged in substantial activity, the disability claim will be denied. ... In step two, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant fails to show that her impairments are “severe”, she is ineligible for disability benefits. ... In step three, the Commissioner compares the medical evidence of the claimant’s impairment to a list of impairments presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If a claimant does not suffer from a listed impairment or its equivalent, the analysis proceeds to steps four and five Step four requires the ALJ to consider whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). The claimant bears the burden of demonstrating an inability to return to her past relevant work. ... If the claimant is unable to resume her former occupation, the evaluation moves to the final step. At this stage, the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner, who must demonstrate the claimant is capable of performing other available work in order to deny a claim of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). The ALJ must show there are other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy which the claimant can perform, consistent with her medical impairments, age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1520(a) sets out a step-by-step disability determination considering current work activity, impairment severity, residual functional capacity, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience.

Cunningham v. Apfel · filed 2000-08-04(a)

We review the action under the Commissioner's familiar sequential process. Under the regulations, the disability determination involves a step-by-step analysis of a claimant's current work activity; the severity of his or her impairments; and an assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity in light of his or her age, education and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a); Braswell v. Heckler, 733 F.2d 531, 533 (8th Cir. 1984). If the claimant suffers from an impairment that is either included in, or equal to, an impairment listed in the Commissioner's itemization of presumptively disabling impairments (the Listings), the claimant will be determined disabled without consideration of his or her age, education, or work experience. See Braswell, 733 F.2d at 533. If the Commissioner finds that the claimant does not have an impairment that meets the Listings, the Commissioner next considers the claimant's residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant's past work and determines whether the claimant can still perform that work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(c) requires considering the combined effect of impairments and treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits basic work activities; subsections (e) and (f) direct the past-work and other-work steps of the disability evaluation.

Mayes v. Larry G. Massanari, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2001-12-21(c), (e), (f)

A determination of whether an individual’s impairments are of a sufficient medical severity to form the basis of eligibility for disability insurance benefits turns on the combined effect of all of the individual’s impairments. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B) (Supp.2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (2000). Impairments are severe if they significantly limit a person’s “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (2000). ... If the individual can still do the work she did in the past, then the ALJ should determine that she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), 404.1561 (2000). If she cannot do the work she did in the past, the ALJ should consider her residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to determine whether she can do other work. If she can do other work, then she is not disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to proceed through sequential steps, with step three comparing the claimant’s impairment to the Listings and step four determining whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Nkrumah v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-03-24(d), (e)

In step three, the Commissioner compares the medical evidence of the claimant's impairment to a list of impairments presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. ... If a claimant does not suffer from a listed impairment or its equivalent, the analysis proceeds to steps four and five. ... At step four of the evaluation process, an ALJ determines whether a claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work – either as he performed it or as it exists in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated in a five-step sequence, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner at the fifth step.

Mendes v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-07-14(a)(4)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2003) (as revised by 68 F.R. 51153 (Aug. 26, 2003)), evaluation of disability proceeds in a five-step sequence. At the first step, the Commissioner asks whether the claimant is still working, § 404.1520(a)(4)(i); if so, the claimant is not disabled. Second, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment--in other words, an impairment which significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not disabled. If so, the Commissioner proceeds to the third step, determining whether the claimant's condition is the same or equal to the listing of impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P to Part 404. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is disabled. If the claimant's condition does not meet or equal the listings, the Commissioner asks whether the claimant's residual functional capacity allows the claimant to do the kind of work the claimant has done in the past. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the Commissioner will then consider whether the claimant's residual functional capacity and other characteristics would allow the claimant to do other work. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not disabled; if not, the claimant is disabled. The burden of proof is on the claimant through the first four steps, but shifts to the Commissioner if the process reaches the fifth step. Newell, 347 F.3d at 546.

Sections 404.1520(e), (f), and (g)(1) govern steps four and five: the claimant's capacity for past relevant work is assessed first, and if she cannot do it, the Commissioner must show that she can adjust to other work.

Sparks v. Barnhart · filed 2004-08-12(e), (f), (g)(1)

Step Four, one of the determinations of which are at issue in this case, asks whether the claimant's severe impairment or combination of impairments prevents her from doing work she has performed in the past. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... If a claimant is able to perform her previous work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). ... If she cannot perform her past work the burden shifts and, at Step Five, the Commissioner must show that the impairment or combination of impairments does not prevent her from making an adjustment to any other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1); see Singh v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 448, 451 (8th Cir.2000) (burden). If she can make such an adjustment, then she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation, with the burden shifting to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant can perform other substantial gainful employment.

Workman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-07-29

Once it is established, as it has been in this case, that a claimant cannot perform his past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish that the claimant retains sufficient residual functional capacity to permit him to engage in other substantial gainful employment.

Section 404.1520(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially, so Step 3 listing analysis cannot occur until Steps 1 and 2 have been satisfied.

Henson v. Barnhart · filed 2005-04-29(a)

Given the sequential analysis established by regulation and approved by courts, evaluation of impairments under Listings standards is improper without first evaluating the evidence under Step 1 and Step 2. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation but permits the Commissioner to stop at step two when the claimant lacks a severe impairment.

Welteroth v. Comm Social Security · filed 2006-01-10

As we have indicated, he contends that the Commissioner did not follow the five-step sequential evaluation procedure in deciding the disability issue as mandated by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. It is true that the Commissioner stopped the analysis at the second step when it was determined that Welteroth did not have a severe impairment. Assuming that that finding was correct then the Commissioner acted properly in stopping the evaluation at that point.

Sections 404.1520(b) through (e) require the sequential disability analysis to proceed from substantial gainful activity, to severe impairment, to a listed impairment, and then to ability to perform past work, with review stopping if the claimant fails one of the first four steps.

Reece v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-12(b)-(e)

[The first step is] whether the claimant engaged in substantial gainful employment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If not, the analysis continues to determine whether, based upon the medical evidence, the claimant has a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimed impairment is sufficiently severe, the third step considers whether the claimant has an impairment that equals or exceeds in severity one or more of the impairments listed in Appendix I of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. Part 404, sub-part P, App.I. If so, the claimant is disabled. If not, the next inquiry considers if the impairment prevents the claimant from returning to past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). If the answer is in the affirmative, the final consideration looks to whether the impairment precludes the claimant from performing other work.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability determination, with the fifth step asking whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy based on residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Kratman v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-30(a)(4)(v)

The Social Security Act and regulations thereunder, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v) and 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v), apply a five step test to determine whether a claimant is disabled for the purposes of the Act. ... Under the fifth step, the ALJ asks whether the claimant’s RFC, age, education and work experience indicate that the claimant could work another job in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not disabled. ... Without resolving this conflict regarding Kratman’s ability to perform light work, the ALJ erred when he concluded that Kratman could perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 27).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially, but an ALJ may consider a later step to determine whether the claimant was disabled during an earlier period before the established onset of disability.

McClanahan v. Comm Social Security · filed 2006-08-22(a)(4)

McClanahan next argues that the ALJ erred in proceeding to step four of the inquiry after he determined that McClanahan was disabled after July 27, 2001, at step three of the analysis. He claims that pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a) (4), “the ALJ should not go on to the next step. The ALJ should have applied Social Security Ruling 83-20.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. ... Second, the sequential analysis that McClanahan asserts was improper was not improper. The ALJ was ascertaining the status of McClanahan’s disability claim prior to the July 27, 2001, finding of disability when he looked at step four. He engaged in this analysis in order to determine whether McClanahan could have performed work during the period of time between his alleged disability in 1997 and the finding of the listed disability of July 27, 2001. See Tr. 273-73. He was not attempting to determine McClanahan’s residual functional capacity after the date of disability.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a severe impairment that significantly limits basic work abilities, and subsection (f) treats a claimant as not disabled when she can perform her past relevant work.

Catalano v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-02(c), (f)

A claimant is disabled only if she has a severe impairment, or combination of impairments, significantly limiting her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 1521(a). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Catalano is not disabled because her residual functional capacity (“RFC”) enables her to perform her past relevant work. ... When applied to her past relevant work, this RFC renders Catalano not disabled. Catalano does not allege her past relevant work involved more than “light” exertion, and the vocational expert testified that it is performed at the “sedentary” level in the national economy. A claimant is not disabled if she is capable of performing her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). Therefore, the ALJ properly concluded that Catalano was not disabled because her “sedentary to light” RFC enables her to perform her past relevant work.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to decide each step of the sequential disability analysis before proceeding to the next.

Blackmon v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-04(a)(4)

A sequential analysis and determination of each step individually is required before moving on to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires disability determinations to follow the sequential analysis; a severe impairment alone does not establish disability, and when the listings are not met the ALJ evaluates residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work.

Freels v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-25(e), (f)

In the present matter, the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff has severe impairments does not establish disability. Since her impairments do not match one listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, the ALJ determined her residual functional capacity based on the medical evidence and testimony, and found plaintiff able to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels, specifically at her past relevant work level, with decreased exposure to mold. The ALJ followed the analysis required under 20 C.F.R § 404.1520 for determining disability; therefore, his findings are not contradictory.

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential five-step disability evaluation, and once the ALJ finds a claimant disabled or not disabled at any step, the evaluation does not proceed to the next step.

McMahon v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-06(a)

Social Security Administration regulations incorporate a sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is under a disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ first considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, then the ALJ considers in the second step whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. If the claimant suffers a severe impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based on the medical evidence, the impairment meets the criteria of an impairment listed in the “listing of impairments,” 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 (1999), which result in a presumption of disability, or whether the claimant retains the capacity to work. If the impairment does not meet the criteria for a listed impairment, then the ALJ assesses in the fourth step whether, despite the severe impairment, the claimant has the RFC to perform his past work. If the claimant cannot perform his past work, then step five is to determine whether there is other work in the national economy that the claimant can perform. ... If the ALJ finds that a claimant is disabled or not disabled at any point in the sequence, review does not proceed to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Under § 404.1520, the disability inquiry proceeds through sequential steps; meeting or equaling a listed impairment requires a disability finding, and at step five the ALJ must assess the claimant’s qualifications and whether work exists in the national economy.

McGregor v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-12(a)(4)(iii) and (f)

Accordingly, a claimant who meets or equals a Listing is “conclusively presumed to be disabled and entitled to benefits.” ... At step 5 in the sequential evaluation, an ALJ is required to perform a two part process to first assess the claimant’s job qualifications by considering her physical ability, age, education, and work experience, and then determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant could perform.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation, permits a finding of non-disability when the claimant lacks a severe impairment, requires the Commissioner at step five to show that significant work exists in the national economy, and ends the analysis once disability is resolved at a step.

Beegle v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2012-07-23(c), (a)(4)(v), (a)(4)

A person who does not have a severe impairment is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... At the fifth step of the disability analysis, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that, in light of the claimant’s residual functional capacity and other factors, there exist in the national economy a significant number of jobs that the claimant can perform. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1180; Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If such jobs exist, then the claimant is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... As we’ve noted, however, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Beegle’s depression did not constitute a severe mental impairment, and the ALJ did not have to proceed further with her analysis of Beegle’s depression. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (“[i]f we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at a step [in the 5-step sequential analysis], we make our determination or decision and we do not go on to the next step”).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) provides that a claimant is not disabled if, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, the claimant can adjust to other work.

Larry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-02-07(a)(4)(v)

A person who does not have a severe impairment, or who can make an adjustment to other work, is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (c), (g)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v), (c), (g)(1). ... In sum, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. Larry had no severe impairments and thus was ineligible for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.

Section 404.1520(a) uses a sequential evaluation in which residual functional capacity is considered at the fifth and final step, and later steps are not considered when a decision is made at an earlier step.

Pierce v. Astrue · filed 2013-05-17(a)

The RFC determination is made at the fifth step of the sequential evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (“At the fifth and last step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your age, education, and work experience to see if you can make an adjustment to other work.”). The SSA’s model for determining disability is “sequential” in the sense that when a decision can be made at an earlier step, later steps are not considered. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential, step-by-step process for determining disability, and review ends when the agency decides at any step that the claimant is or is not disabled.

Mukes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-05-20(a)

The Secretary’s regulations provide a step-by-step review process for determining disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If at any step in the review the Secretary makes a decision that the Plaintiff is or is not disabled, review of the claim ceases. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Max v. Astrue · filed 2014-03-31(a)(4)(iv)

The Social Security Administration has promulgated regulations, pursuant to the statue, outlining a five-step process for evaluating disability of adults. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. First, the agency evaluates whether the claimant is “doing substantial gainful activity;” if yes, the agency concludes that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(I), (b); 416.920(a)(4)(I), (b). ... Next, the agency assesses the claimant’s “residual functional capacity and . . . past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), (e), (f); 416.920(a)(4)(iv), (e), (f). Residual functional capacity is “the most [an individual] can still do despite” “physical and mental limitations,” from all medically determinable impairments, “that affect what [he or she] can do in a work setting.” § 404.1545. If the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform his or her “past relevant work,” the claimant is deemed not disabled. § 404.1560(b)(3).

Section 404.1520 requires disability to be evaluated through a five-step sequence: Step Three assesses whether an impairment meets or equals a listing, the RFC is assessed if it does not, and Step Five considers whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Smith-Johnson v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2014-09-08(a)(4)(iii), (a)(4), (a)(4)(v)

Corresponding regulations outline a five-step sequential process to determine whether an individual qualifies as disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Relevant here are Steps Three and Five. At Step Three, the ALJ considers the medical severity of the impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment meets or equals one of the Social Security Listings and meets the durational requirement, then the ALJ will find the claimant disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). Otherwise, the ALJ will assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). At Step Five, the ALJ considers the assessment of the residual functional capacity, along with the claimant’s age, education and work experience, to determine if she can make adjustments to other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If she can make adjustments to other work, then the claimant will not be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) sets out the sequential disability evaluation, requiring the claimant to establish disability through the initial steps and shifting the burden to the Commissioner at step five.

McCann v. Colvin · filed 2015-06-10(a)(4)

To establish disability, the claimant must show (1) he has not worked since the alleged disability onset date, (2) he has a severe impairment, and (3) his impairment meets or equals a listed impairment or (4) his residual functional capacity precludes him from performing his past work. ... At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner, who must show that the claimant is able to perform other work.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to begin the disability evaluation by examining whether, taking substance abuse into account, the claimant cannot work.

Robinson v. Berryhill · filed 2017-05-03

First, taking into account substance abuse, an ALJ examines whether a claimant cannot work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... Because the ALJ followed the necessary steps, the ALJ properly evaluated whether Robinson is disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential evaluation in which an impairment can be severe at step two yet still fail to meet or equal a listed impairment at step three.

Austin v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-07(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has any impairments, singly or in combination, that qualify as severe under the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the ALJ finds that the claimant does have one or more severe impairments, the ALJ will compare those impairments to the impairments listed in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) and 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... Having determined at step two that Plaintiff’s degenerative disc disease and scoliosis were severe impairments, the ALJ permissibly found at step three that those impairments did not meet the level of severity described in Listing 1.04.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential process, ending with whether the claimant can perform other work, and no further inquiry is needed once disability is established at an earlier step.

Murray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20(a), (g)

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.3 If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g).

Section 404.1520 uses a sequential disability evaluation that ends when a claimant can perform past relevant work and otherwise reaches step five, where RFC, age, education, and work experience determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Reed v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-20(f), (a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

But, in this case, the evaluation process ends at Step Four because the ALJ appropriately found the Plaintiff could perform her past work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) (“If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.”); ... In other words, the burden does not shift to the Commissioner to prove Plaintiff could perform other work, and the Court can affirm on that basis alone. ... At Step Five, the ALJ considers the Plaintiff’s RFC, along with Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience, to determine whether Plaintiff can make an adjustment to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s decision at Step Five is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential disability evaluation: at step two, the ALJ assesses whether the claimant has a severe impairment, and at step five, determines whether the claimant can perform other work in the national or regional economy.

FLORES v. SAUL · filed 2019-12-16(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(v), (f)

The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) has implemented these statutory standards by, in part, prescribing a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... At Step 2 of the five-step analysis, the ALJ must evaluate whether the claimant in fact has an impairment3 or combinations of impairment that is severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If there are no medically determinable severe impairments, the claimant is not found to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... At Step 5 of the five-step analysis, an ALJ must determine whether the person can do any other work that exists in the national or regional economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (e), (f). ... Because the vocational expert provided only national numbers—no “regional” numbers—and the Act and § 404.1566(a) clearly provide that the significance of job numbers shall be judged based on less than the national totals, the Commissioner did not meet his burden and the case must be remanded on this issue.

Section 404.1520 requires disability to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, and an error at step two is not necessarily harmless when the omitted limitation could affect later steps and the ultimate disability determination.

DIGUGLIELMO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-02-24(a)(4)

While a failure to find an additional severe impairment at Step Two is not a per se basis for remand, it does not necessarily follow that it is “harmless” to the Plaintiff’s case in toto. A finding of a second severe limitation in Step Two would of necessity affect the limitation analysis of Step Three, and likely the residual function capacity analysis of Step Four. As discussed in more detail below, a revised RFC incorporating further limitations may have resulted in the vocational expert finding no jobs available for the Plaintiff.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) begins the sequential disability evaluation by asking whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Collier v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-17(a)(4)(i)

Under SSA regulations, disability is evaluated under the sequential five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v). The Second Circuit has described the process as follows: First, the Secretary considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential disability evaluation in which past relevant work is assessed at step four and the Medical-Vocational Guidelines are considered at step five.

Sims v. Saul · filed 2020-03-24(a)(4)(iv)

The regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Social Security provide for a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a Social Security claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The sequential inquiry is terminated when “a question is answered affirmatively or negatively in such a way that a decision can be made that a claimant is or is not disabled.” ... The fourth step of the evaluation process then requires the ALJ determine whether the claimant’s RFC is sufficient to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); 404.1520(f). ... Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ improperly ignored the Medical-Vocational Guidelines in finding that she would have the RFC to perform light work if she stopped substance use and thus would not be disabled. The Guidelines, however, are applicable at step five. ... The Guidelines were not applicable.

Section 404.1520(c)–(d) requires the ALJ to deny disability at step two for lack of a severe impairment and to find disability at step three when a severe impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment and the duration requirement.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(c) (d)

An ALJ must proceed through the required sequential steps for evaluating entitlement to Social Security benefits. These steps are: ... 2. An individual who does not have a “severe impairment” will not be found to be “disabled” (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c) (1992)); ... 3. If an individual is not working and is suffering from a severe impairment which meets the duration requirement, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 and 416.909 (1992), and which meets or is equivalent to a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, a finding of disabled will be made without consideration of vocational factors (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d) (1992)); ... Plaintiff has not shown any error at step three. She did not articulate which Listing she alleges she medically equaled or what record evidence would have supported a medical equivalency finding, thus triggering the requirement to consult with a ME. See SSR 96-6p. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err at step three and supported her decision with substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(a) establishes the sequential disability evaluation, including determining at Step Five whether the claimant's impairments prevent work in the national economy considering the claimant's residual functional capacity.

VARGAS v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-06-18(a)

At Step Five of the sequential evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s impairments prevent him from performing work in the national economy considering his RFC.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability through a sequential five-step process, including comparison with listed impairments at step three and consideration of adjustment to other work at step five.

Gittman-Crowther v. Saul · filed 2020-07-14(a)(4), (a)(4)(iii), (g)

The Commissioner must perform a five-step analysis to determine whether a particular claimant has met his or her burden of establishing disability. ... If the Commissioner makes a finding of disability or non-disability at any point in the sequential process, the Commissioner will not review the claim further. ... If the claimant’s impairments are severe, at step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s impairments to a list of impairments that are presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. ... When a claimant’s impairment or its equivalent matches a listed impairment, the claimant is presumed disabled. ... If the claimant is unable to return to past relevant work, at step five, the Commissioner must demonstrate that the claimant’s impairments do not preclude her from adjusting to any other available work.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential evaluation for disability claims, ending with a determination whether the claimant can perform other work; a claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to do so.

Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-24(a), (c), (g)

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims sequentially by considering substantial gainful activity, severity, the Listings, residual functional capacity and past work, and the claimant’s ability to perform other work.

Mazzaferro v. Saul · filed 2020-08-04(b)-(g)

To arrive at a determination as to disability, the ALJ must undertake the sequential evaluation embodied in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. This process requires that the ALJ first determine whether the claimant is presently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If so, a finding of “no disability” is made. If the claimant is not engaged in such work, then the ALJ must proceed to the second step and determine whether the claimant suffers from a “severe impairment.” An impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If no severe impairment is found, then the ALJ will conclude that there is no disability; if a severe impairment is found, then the ALJ will proceed to the next step of the analysis. See id. The third step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals those listed in Appendix 1 of the Regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If so, the ALJ will find the claimant disabled without considering age, education, and work experience. Id. If not, the inquiry will proceed to the next stage. Step four requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The Regulations define RFC as “the most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). This determination takes into account “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including the claimant’s own testimony and the observations of others. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). The ALJ must then compare the RFC with the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work to determine whether the claimant is still capable of performing that kind of work. If so, the claimant is found not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If the claimant establishes an inability to return to past relevant work, the inquiry turns to step five. “At step five the burden of going forward shifts to the [Commissioner] ‘to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy which, given the claimant’s impairments, the claimant can perform.’” Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987)). If the Commissioner points to possible alternative employment, then the burden returns to the claimant to prove an inability to perform those jobs. Id. At this fifth and final step, the ALJ must resolve whether the claimant is actually capable of performing other work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 404.1560(c).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability through a five-step sequence and stop once disability or non-disability is established.

Hoynoski v. Saul · filed 2020-08-05(a)(4)

As noted previously, in determining whether a person is disabled, the Commissioner is required to perform a five-step sequential analysis.'* ... If a finding of disability or non-disability can be made at any point in the sequential process, the Commissioner does not review the claim further.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential process, ending with whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.

Buchanon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(a), (g)

The Social Security Administration, in order to regularize the adjudicative process, promulgated the detailed regulations currently in effect. These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to assess whether impairments are severe at step two and to combine and compare them at step three when determining whether they meet or equal a listed impairment.

RODRIGUEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-04-29(c)-(d)

At step 2, the ALJ did not find that obesity was a severe impairment at all. The medical evidence of obesity was referred to in passing later, in the summary of evidence pertaining to step 3 and the RFC. That evidence would necessitate a finding of severe obesity for some portion of the claimed period of disability, and obesity for the rest. ... In short, the ALJ must, on remand, “combine and compare” the impairments at step 3 to determine whether they add up to some period of disability within the relevant period.

Section 404.1520's sequential-evaluation framework permits a step-two error to be harmless when the ALJ considers the omitted impairment in the remaining steps.

Washington v. Saul · filed 2021-06-18(a)(4)

Thus, because it is clear that the ALJ went on to consider the impact of the symptoms of Plaintiff’s CRPS “in evaluating the remaining steps in the sequential analysis,” any error committed by the ALJ in finding that CRPS was not a medically determinable impairment was harmless.

Section 404.1520(c) requires deciding whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, subsection (d) requires deciding whether the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, and subsection (e) requires determining residual functional capacity before step four.

Jockisch v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(c), (d), (e)

At step two, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that are severe. 20 CFR § 404.1520(c). ... The court finds the ALJ did not err at step two of the sequential evaluation. ... At step three, the ALJ determines whether claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“Appendix 1”). 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526. ... The court finds the ALJ did not err at step three of the sequential evaluation. ... Before considering step four of the evaluation process, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record and, at step three, determine whether the claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

Hulon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(d), (a)(3)

At step three, the ALJ is called upon to consider the severity of an individual’s impairments, singly and in combination, to determine whether he or she meets or medically equals a listing that directs a finding of disability. ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). ... The Regulations direct administrative law judges to “consider all evidence in [a claimant’s] case record when [making] a determination or decision whether [the claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires a sequential disability evaluation: at step three a qualifying listed impairment establishes disability, at step four the claimant must show inability to perform past relevant work, at step five the Commissioner considers the claimant's RFC and vocational factors to determine ability to perform other work, and the evaluation ends once disability or nondisability is found at any step.

Sailor v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-13(a)(4)(iii), (a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v), (a)(4)

At step three, if the impairment meets one of the listed impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404 (Listing of Impairments), the claimant will be considered disabled without consideration of age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). At step four, if the claimant is unable to prove the existence of a listed impairment, he must prove that his impairment prevents performance of past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). At step five, the regulations direct the Commissioner to consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), age, education, and past work experience to determine whether the claimant can perform other work besides past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). The Commissioner must produce evidence that there is other work available in the national economy that the claimant has the capacity to perform. Doughty, 245 F.3d at 1278 n.2. To be considered disabled, the claimant must prove an inability to perform the jobs that the Commissioner lists. Id. If at any step in the sequence a claimant can be found disabled or not disabled, the sequential evaluation ceases and further inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, an ALJ need not evaluate a non-severe impairment at step three, although a finding of non-severity cannot be supported when the record shows that the impairment satisfies a listed impairment.

Cummins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-14(c)-(d)

First, Cummins has not shown that an ALJ is required to consider whether a non-severe impairment meets or equals a listing at step three. ... Thus, to the extent Cummins argues that the ALJ was required to consider her history of lymphoma at step three, her argument fails. ... Nevertheless, a finding at step two that an impairment is not severe is “fundamentally inconsistent” with facts showing that that impairment satisfies a listed impairment at step three. ... Consequently, if a court’s reading of the record should reveal that the listing’s criteria are satisfied according to valid tests and credible reports, an ALJ’s finding of no severe impairment at step two cannot be found to be supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential process for deciding whether a claimant is disabled, including review of work activity, impairment severity, listed impairments, past work, and other available work.

Golden v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-31(a)(4)

An examiner must consider the following: (1) whether the claimant is working; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether that impairment meets or equals an impairment included in the Listings;1 (4) whether such impairment prevents claimant from performing PRW; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing specific jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 uses a sequential disability test, so an impairment found non-severe at step two need not be evaluated under a listing at step three.

Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-09(c), (d)

The ALJ did not consider Listing 12.04 at step three because he did not find Plaintiffs dysthymia to be severe at step two. See Bowen 476 U.S. at 470; Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir. 1982) (per curiam). Plaintiff is not entitled to remand simply because the ALJ included a more restrictive limitation in the RFC than perhaps necessary after finding that Plaintiff had “mild” limitations in interacting with others.

The sequential disability evaluation ends when the agency determines at any step that a claimant is or is not disabled; a claimant who can still perform past relevant work is not disabled.

Oliver v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-03-21(a)(4)(iv)

The Court finds that it does not need to address Plaintiff’s argument regarding the obsolete jobs the ALJ cited at step five in the analysis because Plaintiff has failed to show how the ALJ’s determination at step four that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work was erroneous. “If, at any step in the process, the ALJ concludes that the claimant is or is not disabled, the ALJ can then complete the ‘determination or decision and [the ALJ] do[es] not go on to the next step.’” Martin v. Kijakazi, No. 2:21-74-KKC, 2022 WL 2110319, at *2 (E.D. Ky. June 10, 2022) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4))); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) (“If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.”).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequential evaluation and permits the analysis to end at step two when the claimant lacks a severe impairment meeting the duration requirement.

Costello v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-23(a)(4)(ii)

The regulations set forth a five-step sequential analysis that the Commissioner must follow in determining Plaintiff’s disabled status. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. A claimant bears of showing he has a medically determinable impairment that is severe and meets the duration requirement of the Act in order to move past the second step of the sequential analysis. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). ... Based on the foregoing, the ALJ properly determined at step two of the sequential evaluation that Plaintiff did not have a medically determinable severe impairment from his June 30, 2016 alleged onset date through his December 31, 2016 date last insured. Tr. 35-39; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a), 404.1508, 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1521; see Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to use a sequential disability evaluation, including a severity screen at step two before proceeding to later steps.

Lovett v. Social Security · filed 2023-11-03

To arrive at a determination as to disability, the ALJ must undertake the sequential evaluation embodied in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. ... Here, because the ALJ found severe impairments at step two – albeit no severe mental impairments – she did not “weed out” Plaintiff’s claims at step two. Rather, the ALJ denied Plaintiff’s claims at step four.