20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

Section 404.1520 ends the sequential disability inquiry when the Commissioner can determine that a claimant is disabled or not disabled at a step.

Brown v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-09(a)(4)

If a decision regarding disability may be made at any step, no further inquiry is necessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (providing that if Commissioner can find claimant disabled or not disabled at a step, Commissioner makes determination and does not go on to the next step).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine disability through a five-step sequential evaluation, progressing from substantial gainful activity and severe impairment to listed impairments, residual functional capacity and past work, and other work in the national economy.

Roberts v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-14

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.” ... 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). ... 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). ... If the claimant establishes an inability to return to past relevant work, the inquiry turns to step five. ... 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)(i)–(v) requires an ALJ to determine disability through a five-step sequence, including deciding whether the claimant has a severe impairment, whether it meets a listed impairment, and whether the claimant can perform past or other work.

Hodge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-23(a)(4)(i)–(v)

The Social Security regulations outline a five-step process that the ALJ must use in determining whether a claimant is entitled to supplemental-security income or disability-insurance benefits: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) if so, whether that impairment, or combination of impairments, meets or equals any of the listings in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) if not, whether the claimant can perform her past relevant work in light of her residual functional capacity (“RFC”); and (5) if not, whether, based on the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, she can perform other work found in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v); Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 642–43 (6th Cir. 2006).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) permits the sequential evaluation to stop once the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at a step, so the agency need not proceed to the next step.

Lozano v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-12(a)(4)

Thus, Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). (“If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at a step, we make our determination or decision and we do not go on to the next step.”).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) places the residual functional capacity assessment between steps three and four of the sequential disability evaluation, so past relevant work assessed at step four need not be imported into the RFC.

Dial v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-11(a)(4)

The ALJ was not required to import Dial’s past relevant work, assessed at Step Four, into the RFC, which is determined earlier in the sequential disability analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (“Before we go from step three to step four, we assess your residual functional capacity.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(5)(i) (“We will first use our residual functional capacity assessment at step four of the sequential evaluation process to decide if you can do your past relevant work.”).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to evaluate a disability claim through a five-step sequential process, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or other substantial gainful activity.

Manriquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-30(a)(4)

In evaluating a disability claim, the ALJ follows a five-step sequential process to determine whether: (1) the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful employment; (2) the claimant has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment; (3) the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment in the appendix to the regulations; (4) the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) the impairment prevents the claimant from performing other substantial gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Salmond, 892 F.3d at 817.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant to be found disabled when the claimant has an impairment listed in Appendix 1 or an equivalent impairment.

Torres v. Heckler · filed 1983-07-28(d)

If the claimant has one of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 to 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404 or an impairment equal thereto, she is to be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (1982).

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to evaluate disability through a sequential analysis.

Lanzissero v. Heckler · filed 1984-02-27(f)

In evaluating whether a claimant is disabled, the Secretary must perform the sequential analysis set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequence of tests, including whether a claimant can perform past relevant work.

Taylor v. Heckler · filed 1984-08-17(c), (e)

The Secretary’s regulations require a sequential evaluation of disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Under the fourth test the Secretary asks whether “the claimant’s impairment prevents] him from performing work of the sort he has done in the past.” ... Under the fourth test plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing an impairment which renders him unable to return to his former type of employment. ... For purposes of the second step in the analysis, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), there can be no question that plaintiff’s mental impairment is “severe,” that is, it significantly limits plaintiff’s mental ability to perform basic work-related activities. ... However, a determination that an impairment is “severe” for purposes of the second sequential severity test has no bearing on the proper application of the fourth test. The fourth test assumes the presence of a severe impairment and asks whether, in light of the severe impairment, the claimant retains the RFC to meet the physical and mental demands of his or her past relevant work.

Section 404.1520 sets out a five step sequence for evaluating adult disability claims, including a severity screen at the second step.

Sprague v. Heckler · filed 1984-09-28(c)

The regulations set forth a sequential analysis containing five steps for evaluating disability claims. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Goodermote v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 690 F.2d 5, 6-7 (1st Cir.1982). ... At issue in this case is the second step, which is embodied in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c): ... It is reversible error to include considerations set forth in the third step for the purpose of deciding whether an impairment is severe under the second step. ... Thus, utilization of the standards relating to the third step in deciding whether an impairment is severe for the purposes of the second step could cause an improper denial of benefits. See Arroyo v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 558 F.Supp. 482 (D.P.R.1983).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential seven step process.

Douglas GARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1984-10-05

Under these statutes, and the regulations promulgated pursuant to these statutes, a claim of disability must be considered pursuant to the following seven-step analysis: ... 7. Can the claimant, despite his impairments), considering his residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience, do other work — i.e., any other substantial gainful activity which exists in the national economy? If yes, the claimant is not disabled. If no, the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a), 404.1520(f)(1); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.905(a), 416.920(f)(1).

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to determine whether a claimant's impairment prevents other substantial gainful work after considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Barbarine CARRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defend · filed 1985-01-17

Once the Secretary has determined that the jobless claimant has a severe impairment which does not meet or equal a listed impairment in Appendix 1, but prevents the claimant from doing her past relevant work, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b)-(e), she must determine whether the impairment prevents the claimant from “engaging] in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy____” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.-1520(f).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially, including whether the claimant has a severe impairment.

Edwards ex rel. Edwards v. Heckler · filed 1985-03-28(c)

An impairment imposes significant limitations when its effect on a claimant's ability to perform “basic work activities” is more than slight or minimal. The question under Listing 12.05(C), however, is not whether the impairment is in and of itself disabling, see Wright v. Schweiker, 556 F.Supp. 468, 476 (M.D.Tenn.1983); thus, “significant” requires something less than “severe” within the meaning of § 4041520(c).

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential disability evaluation that considers age, education, and work experience when assessing whether a claimant can perform other work.

Charles E. KRAEMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary, Health and Human Services, Defendant-App · filed 1989-07-25

The Secretary correctly followed the sequential evaluation process and considered Kraemer’s age, education, and previous work experience in making the ultimate disability determination.

Section 404.1520(a) ends the sequential evaluation when a supported finding establishes that a claimant can perform past work, without requiring a decision about other jobs.

Brewer v. Chater · filed 1995-12-22(a)

My decision that ALJ Niersbach's determination that Ms. Brewer is capable of performing her past work is supported by substantial evidence renders it unnecessary to resolve Ms. Brewer's argument relating to the ALJ’s conclusion that she could perform other jobs. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520 permits a finding of disability at step three or step five; a negative answer at any other step precludes that finding.

Ortiz v. Chater · filed 1997-11-14

A finding of disability requires an affirmative answer at either step 3 or step 5. A negative answer at any step (other than step 3) precludes a finding of disability.

Section 404.1520 requires a five step evaluation of adult disability claims, including determining whether an impairment is severe.

Wilson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-29(c)

Relevant here, the ALJ concluded at step two of the disability analysis that Wilson’s diagnoses of bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety were not severe under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) because they only minimally limit her “ability to perform basic mental work activities.” ... In sum, bearing in mind our limited role and inability to reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ’s, see id. at 447, we ... hold that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Wilson’s affective disorders were not severe.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps, including deciding at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment.

Perez v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-30(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step of the sequential evaluation process, the hearing officer is required to determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is severe, meaning that the impairments significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities for more than one year. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 404.1520(a)(4)(h), 416.920(c); see also id. §§ 404.1521, 416.921 (defining non-severe impairments). ... Accordingly, this Court rules that the hearing officer’s determination with respect to severe impairments is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five step process to evaluate eligibility for disability insurance benefits.

Ball v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-02

The applicable regulations set forth a five-step analysis the Commissioner must follow in determining eligibility for disability insurance benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920.

Section 404.1520 requires a five step disability evaluation: the claimant bears the burden through step four, and the Commissioner must show at step five that the claimant can perform other work available in the national economy.

Egan v. SSA · filed 2012-01-31(e)-(f)

At the fourth step of the evaluation process, the ALJ determines whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing the work she has performed in the past. If the claimant is able to perform her previous work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If ... the claimant is unable to perform prior work, then the fifth step calls for an analysis of the claimant’s ability to perform other work in light of her RFC, as well as age, education, and work experience. If the claimant is unable to perform other work in the national economy, then she is entitled to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Vega-Valentin v . Astrue, 725 F. Supp. 2d 2 6 4 , 268 (D.P.R. 2010).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating whether an adult is disabled.

Brown v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-26

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled as defined under the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 404.1520.

The sequential disability evaluation may end before steps four and five when the claimant is found not disabled at an earlier step.

Lechner, Margaret v. O'Malley, Martin · filed 2024-02-26(a)(4)

Given that the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled at steps two and three, however, he did not need to engage in the analysis at steps four and five, and therefore, had no reason to hear testimony from the vocational expert to conclude that plaintiff was not disabled.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) ends the sequential disability evaluation when the Commissioner can determine at a step whether the claimant is disabled.

Arnette v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-14(a)(4)

If a decision regarding disability may be made at any step, no further inquiry is necessary.

The sequential evaluation ends at step four when the claimant is found not disabled; the ALJ need not proceed to step five.

Cornett v. SSA · filed 2024-03-19(a)(4)

Because the ALJ concluded that Ms. Cornett was not disabled at Step Four, there was no requirement that the ALJ proceed to Step Five of the inquiry.

Section 404.1520 directs disability determinations through a sequential evaluation of employment, impairment severity, listed impairments, past work, and other work.

Randolphi v. Schweiker · filed 1982-02-02

The regulations list the steps that must be taken in determining whether a claimant is disabled. A claimant is found “not disabled” if he or she (1) is currently engaged in substantial gainful employment; or (2) does not have a “severe impairment” significantly limiting the ability to perform “basic work activities.” If the claimant does have a severe impairment and it is identical or equivalent to an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of title 20 of the regulations, then (3) the claimant is found disabled without further steps being required. If not, however, the claimant may be found not disabled despite the severe impairment if (4) he or she is capable of performing relevant past work or (5) any other substantial work in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

The section requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential analysis, including denial at step two when no severe impairment is found.

Steffanick v. Heckler · filed 1983-08-18(c)

The ALJ’s basis for denying plaintiff’s claim was made with reference to the second step of the sequential analysis. That step requires a denial of a disability claim if no severe impairment is found. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (1981). ... For the reasons set out above, the court concludes that the Secretary’s finding that the plaintiff does not suffer from a severe impairment is unsupported by substantial evidence.

The section’s second step must measure severity by whether an impairment prevents previous work, rather than only whether it limits basic work activities.

Johnson v. Heckler · filed 1984-09-19(c)

Since the severity regulation increases the claimant’s burden of proof as defined by the statute, the regulation is inconsistent with the Act and is therefore beyond the scope of the Secretary’s statutory authority.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including comparison of past work demands with residual functional capacity.

Brooks v. Sullivan · filed 1991-05-01(e)

Secretary (and the AU before that) must apply a five-step test to determine whether a claimant is disabled (Pitts v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 561, 564 (7th Cir.1991) (citations omitted)): ... In determining at step 4 whether a claimant is able to perform his or her former occupation, Secretary must evaluate (Reg. § 1520(e); 42 C.F.R. § 416.920(e)): 1. the physical and mental demands of claimant’s former occupation; and 2. claimant’s RFC, a medical assessment of claimant’s capacity for work despite his or her limitations (42 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)).

Section 404.1520 requires evaluating whether impairments are severe and meet or equal listed impairments, with the listings serving as a guide rather than a rigid limit.

Pettyjohn v. Sullivan · filed 1991-10-30

Even the AU accepts this; he recognizes that her impairments are severe within 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and § 416.920. What he denies is that the pain comes within the specific signs and requirements to “meet or equal” the so-called listing requirements. ... The list is a guideline as to the types of ailments that are sufficiently severe to fall within disability allowances. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor to be interpreted in a highly schematic way. The list is intended to be the tool not the master of the judge.

Section 404.1520 sets out a five-step procedure for deciding whether an adult is disabled, including shifting the burden after the claimant proves inability to return to past work.

Scott v. Railroad Retirement Board · filed 1993-04-30

The Board applied the correct standard: that set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1992). ... Step three provides that the petitioner is disabled if the impairment equals one of those listed in section 404, subpt. P, app. 1. Under the fourth step of this procedure, the petitioner bears the burden of proving that he cannot do his former work.

Section 404.1520 sets out the five step process for deciding adult disability claims, including whether a claimant can perform past work or other work.

Ratto v. Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services · filed 1993-08-13(f)

Accordingly, if the reports of Dr. Heilman or Dr. Stites are credible, then.plaintiff is disabled as a matter of law. 20 C.F.R. § 404.-1520(f). ... I hold only that fundamental considerations of fairness require the Secretary to consistently interpret and apply her regulations.

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

Baneky v. Apfel · filed 1998-03-20(c)

With this in mind, the Court considers next whether the Commissioner already has found that plaintiffs lower back pain or his “other” mental problems are “severe” within the meaning of Section 404.1520(c). If so, then plaintiffs impairment satisfies the requirements of Section 12.05(c) and he is entitled to disability insurance benefits.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to use a five step process to evaluate an adult disability claim.

Robidas v. SSA · filed 1999-01-12(d)

In concluding that Mr. Robidas was not disabled within the meaning of the Act, the ALJ properly employed the mandatory five-step seguential evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... Having carefully reviewed the administrative record, the ALJ's written decision, and claimant's arguments, the court concludes that the ALJ's determination at step three of the seguential analysis - that claimant's impairment did not meet or egual a listed impairment - is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 requires an adult disability claim to be evaluated through five steps, including determining whether the claimant has a severe impairment.

Zownir v. SSA · filed 2000-03-29(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine if the individual has an impairment and if that impairment is severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520 sets out the five step process for evaluating adult disability claims, including the Commissioner’s step five burden to show that other jobs exist.

Scott v. Apfel · filed 2000-03-30

In keeping with administrative regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly summarized the five-step disability evaluation process as follows: [The Commissioner] determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment — one that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations ■ (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Section 404.1520(f) requires consideration of a claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can do other work.

Crudup v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-12(f)

Because the ALJ never reached the fifth step in disability analysis described, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f), remand is necessary. ... Consistent with the opinion of the court, upon remand, the Commissioner shall make specific supplemental findings under the step 5 of the analysis for determining disability benefits, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(a) requires an impairment to be severe and meet the duration requirement before the disability evaluation proceeds beyond step two.

STIGGINS v. Barnhart · filed 2003-07-25(a)

If this were the case, his analysis should have ended at step two with a finding that she was not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (“your impairment(s) must be severe and meet the duration requirement ...”).

Section 404.1520 sets out the five step process for deciding whether an adult claimant is disabled and assigns the proof burden through the first four steps.

Briscoe, Katherine v. Barnhart, Jo Anne · filed 2005-09-23

The Social Security regulations prescribe a sequential five-part test for determining whether a claimant is disabled. The ALJ must consider whether: (1) the claimant is presently employed; (2) the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) the claimant’s impairment meets or equals any impairment listed in the regulations as being so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity; (4) the claimant’s residual functional capacity leaves him unable to perform his past relevant work; and (5) the claimant is unable to perform any other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. A finding of disability requires an affirmative answer at either step three or step five. The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, after which at step five the burden shifts to the Commissioner.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability to be evaluated through five sequential steps, including consideration of past work at step four after step three.

Garrett v. Astrue · filed 2007-07-03(a)(4)

The ALJ was required to follow five sequential steps in the evaluation of Garrett, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), but Garrett argues that the ALJ erroneously skipped step three of that evaluation. Garrett’s argument fails. The record establishes that the ALJ did not omit any steps in his evaluation of Garrett’s alleged disability. The ALJ considered Garrett’s work history and ability to perform past work, factors considered during step four of the sequence, only after the ALJ had decided that Garrett did not qualify as disabled under step three. Contrary to Garrett’s argument, the ALJ correctly followed the sequential process.

Section 404.1520 provides for a sequential disability analysis that includes a fifth step considering whether qualifying work exists in the national economy.

Pryor v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-30

Accordingly, the court concludes that there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s denial of plaintiffs claim under the fifth step of the sequential disability analysis set forth under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence.

Mejia v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-28

The Commissioner’s regulations set forth a five-step sequence to be used in evaluating disability claims.

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.

Resendes v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-17(c)

SSA regulations stipulate that an impairment is severe if it “significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) sets out a five-step process for evaluating an application for social security benefits.

Lonardo v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-16(a)(4)

A five-step process is used to evaluate an application for social security benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five steps, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner bearing it at step five.

Rankin v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-28

The ALJ must follow five well-known steps in evaluating a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. First, if a claimant is working at a substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, if a claimant does not have any impairment or combination of impairments, which significantly limit his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, then he does not have a severe impairment and is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Third, if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if a claimant’s impairments do not prevent him from doing past relevant work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Fifth, if a claimant’s impairments (considering his residual functional capacity (“RFC”), age, education and past work) prevent him from doing other work that exists in the national economy, then he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). Significantly, the claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, but the Commissioner bears the burden of proving step five. Goodermote v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 690 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir.1982).

The section establishes a sequential disability evaluation that ends when a claimant is found disabled or not disabled at a step.

Gilliland v. Astrue · filed 2014-09-15(a)(4)

However, remand for consideration of steps two through five is required. The SSA' s regulations instruct that if it finds a claimant is not disabled at any step, it will not continue on to the remaining steps. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520 (a) (4). In this case, the ALJ found Plaintiff to be not disabled at step two, leaving undone any analysis of the remaining steps and necessary factual findings.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation and requires the analysis to continue beyond step two when an impairment is sufficiently severe.

Kalloch v. SSA · filed 2015-03-24

While the court is hesitant to remand this proceeding for a second time, it is constrained to agree with claimant’s assertion that the ALJ’s determination at step two of the sequential analysis (that claimant’s headaches are not “severe”) cannot be sustained. ... A substantial volume of evidence in the record suggests that those migraines are sufficiently severe to have required the ALJ to continue her analysis beyond step two, and factor claimant’s migraines into her determination of a residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five step sequential process for determining disability and assigns the claimant the burden through step four, with the burden shifting to the Commissioner at step five.

Holt v. Berryhill · filed 2017-04-05(d)

The Commissioner has established a five step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The claimant bears the burden of proof during steps one through four. At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. Id. If a claimant is found to be disabled at any step in the sequence, the inquiry ends without the need to consider subsequent steps. Step one asks whether the claimant is presently engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). ... If he is, disability benefits are denied. If he is not, the Commissioner proceeds to step two. At step two, the claimant must establish that he has one or more medically severe impairments, or combination of impairments, that limit his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant does not have such impairments, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the claimant does have a severe impairment, the Commissioner moves to step three to determine whether the impairment meets or equals any of the listed impairments described in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). A claimant whose impairment meets or equals one of the listings for the required twelve-month duration requirement is disabled. Id.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to follow a five-step process, including assessment of residual functional capacity and past relevant work at step four.

McCulley v. Colvin · filed 2019-03-20(a)(4)(iv)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the Social Security Administration uses a five-step sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Kastner, 697 F.3d at 646. ... At step four, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC and ability to engage in past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can engage in past relevant work, she is not disabled. Id.

Section 404.1520 sets out a sequential disability inquiry; at the final step, substantial complaints of pain may require evidence about the claimant’s ability to perform other work rather than reliance solely on the grid.

Barnes v. Schweiker · filed 1983-04-26

It establishes a sequential decision making process to be uniformly followed in deciding disability cases. See 20 CFR § 404.1520. ... Finally, the court is not convinced that the AU was justified in relying solely upon the grid in making a determination in this case. Plaintiff’s complaints of pain are substantial. Without sufficient grounds for rejecting those complaints, the ALJ should have also considered evidence of plaintiff’s ability to engage in other substantial gainful employment.

Section 404.1520’s sequential evaluation permits a denial at step four when the claimant can perform past relevant work after the ALJ evaluates her limitations.

Veverka · filed 2025-12-12

The ALJ properly applied the legal standards under SSR 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 by evaluating Ms. Veverka’s statements about her fatigue and issues with concentration and comparing those statements to the evidence of record, including the normal mental status examination findings, normal neuropsychological evaluation with no evidence of cognitive impairment, and Ms. Veverka’s reported daily and other activities, and reasonably concluded her statements of disabling fatigue and impaired concentration are inconsistent with the record.

The regulation uses a five step disability test, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Secretary establishing available other work at the fifth step.

Jones v. Heckler · filed 1985-07-18(f)(1)

The burden is on the claimant to satisfy the first four elements of the test. However, assuming the claimant satisfies his burden, the burden then shifts to the Secretary to establish the fifth step of the test. At that point the Secretary must establish that the claimant, despite his disability, can do other work. See, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1).

Section 404.1520 sets out a five step disability evaluation and places the burden on the Secretary at the final step to show that the claimant can perform other work.

Brassard v. Heckler · filed 1985-08-02

At this step, the burden is upon the Secretary to produce evidence to show that Plaintiff retained a residual functional capacity for work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether the claimant is disabled.

Hill v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-07(a)(4)

The Commissioner follows a five-step sequential analysis to ascertain whether the claimant is disabled, which is set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential disability inquiry in which a negative answer generally ends the inquiry with a finding of no disability, while an affirmative answer advances the claimant to the next step or establishes disability at steps three or five.

Pawlowski v. Astrue · filed 2011-08-03

An affirmative answer leads either to the next step or, on steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the claimant is disabled. ... A negative answer at any point, other than step 3, stops the inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled.

At step five, § 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to assess the claimant’s ability to perform other work in light of the residual functional capacity and vocational factors; if the claimant cannot adjust to other work, the claimant is disabled.

Chavez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(a)(4)(v), (g)(1)

At step five, the Commissioner should conclude whether, in view of the claimant’s RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). In making this determination, the Commissioner must also consider vocational factors such as the claimant’s age, education and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant is capable of adjusting to other work, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1). If the claimant is not capable of adjusting to other work, analysis concludes with a finding that the claimant is disabled and is therefore entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential process to decide disability, including evaluating work activity, severity, listed impairments, and residual functional capacity before proceeding to later steps.

Fox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-21(a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iii), (e)

Generally, the ALJ must employ a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether the claimant is disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004). At step one, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can still perform substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairments are considered “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listing in 20 C.F.R. part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). At step four, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has the RFC to still perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). At step five, after considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, the ALJ determines whether a significant number of other jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If the ALJ determines the claimant is not disabled under any step, the analysis ceases and the claimant is declared not disabled. 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(a)(4). Here, the ALJ correctly stated this five-step sequential process and then based his decision on it.

Section 404.1520 requires disability to be determined through a five-step sequential analysis, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Williamson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-03(a)(4)

Entitlement to social security benefits is determined by a five-step sequential analysis set forth in the Social Security Regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. First, the claimant must not be engaged in substantial gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). Second, a finding must be made that the claimant suffers from a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(5)(ii). In the third step, the ALJ determines whether the impairment meets or equals the severity criteria set forth in the Listing of Impairments contained in the Social Security Regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526. If the impairment satisfies the criteria for a listed impairment, the claimant is considered to be disabled. On the other hand, if the claimant's impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ must undertake the fourth step in the analysis and determine whether the claimant has the RFC to return to any past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1520(e). If the ALJ determines that the claimant can return to past relevant work, then a finding of “not disabled” must be entered. Id. But if the ALJ finds the claimant unable to perform past relevant work, then at the fifth step the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(g)(1), 416.960(c)(1)-(2). Further review is not necessary if it is determined that an individual is not disabled at any point in this sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential process to determine disability, including assessing residual functional capacity before evaluating past and other work.

Saari v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-19

Generally, the ALJ must employ a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether the claimant is disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004). At step one, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can still perform substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairments are considered “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listing in 20 C.F.R. part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). At step four, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has the RFC to still perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). At step five, after considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, the ALJ determines whether a significant number of other jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If the ALJ determines the claimant is not disabled under any step, the analysis ceases and the claimant is declared not disabled. 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(a)(4). Here, the ALJ correctly stated this five-step sequential process and then based his decision on it.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a claimant is disabled.

LaFaber v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-07

An ALJ is required to follow a five-step sequential analysis to make a disability determination: ... 5. Can the claimant do any other work considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see Jordan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 548 F.3d 417, 422 (6th Cir. 2008).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequence for deciding whether an adult claimant is disabled, with a negative answer generally ending the inquiry and a positive answer advancing it or producing disability at steps three and five.

Masters v. Astrue · filed 2011-08-19

The Social Security Regulations provide a five-step sequential inquiry to determine whether a plaintiff is disabled: 1) is the plaintiff currently unemployed; 2) does the plaintiff have a severe impairment; 3) does the plaintiff have an impairment that meets or equals one of the impairments listed as disabling in the Commissioner’s regulations; 4) is the plaintiff unable to perform his past relevant work; and 5) is the plaintiff unable to perform any other work in the national economy? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; Simila, 573 F.3d at 512-13; Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351-52 (7th Cir.2005). An affirmative answer leads either to the next step or, on steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920; Briscoe, 425 F.3d at 352; Stein v. Sullivan, 892 F.2d 43, 44 (7th Cir.1990). A negative answer at any point, other than step 3, stops the inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Stein, 892 F.2d at 44.

Section 404.1520 sets out a five-step process for deciding whether an adult claimant is disabled, including when an answer ends the inquiry and shifts the burden at step five.

Lopez v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-06

The Social Security Regulations provide a five-step sequential inquiry to determine whether a plaintiff is disabled: 1) is the plaintiff currently unemployed; 2) does the plaintiff have a severe impairment; 3) does the plaintiff have an impairment that meets or equals one of the impairments listed as disabling in the Commissioner’s regulations; 4) is the plaintiff unable to perform his past relevant work; and 5) is the plaintiff unable to perform any other work in the national economy? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; Simila, 573 F.3d at 512-13; Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351-52 (7th Cir.2005). An affirmative answer leads either to the next step or, on steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920; Briscoe, 425 F.3d at 352. A negative answer at any point, other than step 3, stops the inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Stein, 892 F.2d at 44. The claimant bears the burden of proof through step four; if it is met, the burden shifts at step five to the Commissioner, who must present evidence establishing that the claimant possesses the residual functional capacity to perform work that exists in a significant quantity in the national economy. Weatherbee, 649 F.3d at 569-70; Briscoe, 425 F.3d at 352.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability through five sequential steps, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the burden shifting to the Commissioner at step five.

Abrams v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-30

The Commissioner is required to follow a five-step sequential evaluation process in assessing whether a claimant is disabled. ... At the fourth step the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform the physical and mental demands of his past relevant work. If so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied. If the plaintiff carries this burden, a prima facie case of disability is established. ... If the plaintiff has carried his burden of proof through the first four steps, at the fifth step the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform any other substantial gainful activity which exists in the national economy, considering his residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience. ... First, the plaintiff was found capable of returning to his past relevant work, meaning that the burden had not yet shifted to the defendant to show that there were jobs existing in the economy which he could perform despite functional illiteracy in combination with his other restrictions.

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.

Spelatz v. Astrue · filed 2009-04-08(c)

A severe impairment “significantly limits” a claimant’s “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Here, the record does not support the non-examining psychologists’ conclusions. Both Dr. Beickel, the examining psychologist, and Gail Richards, Claimant’s therapist, reported that Claimant suffers from severe depression. Moreover, the ALJ failed to explain adequately why he altered his original conclusion that Claimant’s depression was a severe impairment; the change was not a “technical writing error” but was, instead, substantive. We therefore reverse and remand to the ALJ for reconsideration.

Section 404.1520 places the burden on the Commissioner at Step 5 to show that a claimant can perform work other than past relevant work, while the claimant bears the burden at Step 3 to show that an impairment meets or equals a listing.

DOYLE v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2021-05-04(g), (d)

The ALJ reached Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); Goodermote, 690 F.2d at 7. ... The statement of errors also implicates Step 3 of the sequential evaluation process, at which step a claimant bears the burden of proving that her impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listing. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Dudley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 816 F.2d 792, 793 (1st Cir. 1987).

Under § 404.1520, once a claimant shows that a severe impairment prevents a return to past relevant work, the Secretary must produce evidence that the claimant can perform other jobs in the national economy.

Odella PRESTON, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1985-08-08

Under the sequential proof scheme provided in the Secretary’s regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, however, the burden of production shifts to the Secretary once the claimant establishes that a severe impairment precludes her from returning to her past relevant work; at that point the Secretary must go forward with evidence to show that the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform other jobs in the national economy at peril of having disability found on the basis of the prima facie disabling impairment.

Section 404.1520 uses a five-step disability evaluation process in which the claimant bears the burden through the first four steps.

Johnson v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-18(b)-(f)

The claimant has the burden of establishing the first four steps of the five-step sequential process by establishing a severe impairment which prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work.

Section 404.1520’s sequential evaluation places the burden of proof on the claimant at steps one through four.

Meyer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-17

Under this sequential analysis, the claimant has the burden of proof at steps one through four.

Section 404.1520(a) makes current substantial gainful activity the Step One inquiry, while § 404.1520(f)(1) directs Step Five to consider residual functional capacity and vocational factors to determine whether the claimant can do other work.

Kelley v. Apfel · filed 1999-04-22(a), (f)(1)

Step One asks whether the claimant is currently engaging in "substantial gainful activity." See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). If the claimant is so engaged, he is not disabled. Id. ... The ability to work is relevant at Step Five, which "considers [the claimant's] residual functional capacity and [his] age, education, and past work experience to see if [he] can do other work [besides his past work]." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1). If the claimant can do other work in this regard, he is not disabled. Id.

Section 404.1520 treats inability to perform past work as establishing a prima facie disability case and shifts the burden at the final step to the Secretary to show that the claimant can perform other work in the economy.

Smith v. Sullivan · filed 1991-06-03(e), (f)

Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of disability if she shows that she is unable to perform her past regular work. ... The burden then shifts to the Secretary to show there is work in the local or national economy that the individual can perform. ... If the fifth and final step of the sequential evaluation process is reached, the burden of proof is on the Secretary to show that there is a significant number of jobs in the local or national economy that claimant could perform after consideration of the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); ... The Secretary met its burden at the fifth step of the sequential evaluation process in showing that plaintiff could perform sedentary work in the local or national economy. ... Consequently, plaintiff is not disabled for purposes of obtaining disability insurance benefits.

At the fifth step, once a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform a significant number of other jobs consistent with the claimant’s impairments and vocational factors.

Wigg v. Chater · filed 1995-11-01(f)

“To establish a disability claim, the claimant bears the initial burden of proof to show that he is unable to perform his past relevant work.” ... “If met, the burden of proof then shifts to the Secretary to demonstrate that the claimant retains the physical residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a significant number of other jobs in the national economy that are consistent with the claimant’s impairments and vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience.”

Section 404.1520(e) places the burden on the claimant at the fourth step to show that she cannot perform her past relevant work; if that burden is met, the Commissioner bears the burden at the fifth step of showing that alternative work exists in the national economy.

Newton v. Apfel · filed 2000-04-25(e)

The claimant bears the burden of proof on the first four steps and the burden shifts to the Commissioner for the fifth step. Thus, the claimant must show first that she is no longer capable of performing her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If the claimant satisfies this burden, then the Commissioner must show that the claimant is capable of engaging in some type of alternative work that exists in the national economy. ... The ALJ correctly placed the burden on Newton at the fourth step of the five-step process. It appears, however, that the ALJ did not properly place the burden on the Commissioner at the fifth step.

Section 404.1520(a) forms part of the sequential-evaluation framework under which residual functional capacity is determined at step four and the claimant bears the burden of proof at that step.

Young v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2000-07-28(a)

We reiterate that RFC is determined at step four, where the burden of proof rests with the claimant.

Section 404.1520 places residual functional capacity assessment at step four, where the claimant bears the burden of proof, and moves the inquiry to step five when the claimant cannot perform past work, where the Commissioner bears the burden of producing evidence of available jobs.

Young v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2000-07-28(a), (e), (f)

We reiterate that RFC is determined at step four, where the burden of proof rests with the claimant. ... If the Commissioner determines that, in light of a claimant’s RFC, he or she cannot perform past work, the inquiry proceeds to step five, where the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner to produce evidence of jobs available in the national economy that can be performed by a person with the claimant’s RFC and vocational skills.

At step three, a claimant who meets or medically equals a listed impairment is presumed disabled regardless of age, education, or work experience.

Griffin v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-01(a)(4)(iii), (d)

If a claimant meets or medically equals a listed impairment at step three of the sequential analysis, he is presumed disabled regardless of age, education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d). ... Because record is complete and establishes Plaintiff’s impairment meets Listing 12.04, Plaintiff is presumed disabled.

Section 404.1520(d) treats an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment as presumptively disabling because Listings-level impairments preclude substantial gainful activity.

Frank v. Barnhart · filed 2006-10-02(d)

Impairments in “the Listings” are so severe that they preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (2005); ... A person whose impairment meets or equals an impairment in the Listing is presumptively disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (2005); ... Accordingly, the Listings function as a shortcut for taking administrative notice of ... per se ... disability for claimants with listings-level impairments.

Section 404.1520(d) treats an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment as presumptively disabling.

Pitman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-05-30(d)

“Under a theory of presumptive disability, a claimant is eligible for benefits if [she] has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments.”

Section 404.1520(d) presumes disability for a claimant with a listed impairment, without requiring consideration of age, education, or work experience.

Young v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-02-28(d)

If Mr. Young were to suffer from any of those impairments, no consideration of his age, education or work experience would be required. Disability would be presumed for statutory purposes. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled when the claimant has a severe impairment that satisfies the duration requirement and meets a listed impairment in Appendix 1.

Roy BOX, Appellant v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1995-04-28(d)

Under the Secretary’s regulations, a claimant is presumed disabled if he has a severe impairment that meets the one year duration requirement and is listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

At step three, Section 404.1520(d) treats an impairment meeting or equaling a listed impairment as presumptively disabling.

Milhem v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-28(d)

“Under a theory of presumptive disability, a claimant is eligible for benefits if she has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments.” Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R Part 404, Subpart P, App’x 1)). “The listings specify the criteria for impairments that are considered presumptively disabling.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a)). To meet or equal a listed impairment, a claimant must satisfy all of the criteria of the listed impairment. See Ribaudo v. Barnhart, 458 F.3d 580, 583 (7th Cir. 2006); Maggard v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 376, 380 (7th Cir. 1999). The claimant bears the burden of proving her condition meets or equals a listed impairment. Ribaudo, 458 F.3d at 583; Maggard, 167 F.3d at 380.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability without considering age, education, or work experience when an impairment meets the duration requirement and meets or equals a listed impairment.

Rodriguez v. O'Malley · filed 2023-11-03(d)

Moreover, if Claimant’s impairment satisfied Listing criteria, she would be considered disabled without consideration of her work experience or abilities. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (“If you have an impairment(s) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment(s), we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.”).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, and the court applies step two as a threshold inquiry satisfied by any severe impairment.

King v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2020-02-25(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” if it “significantly limits [Plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” and persists for at least twelve consecutive months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); 404.1505(a). Plaintiff bears the burden to prove that an impairment is severe. See Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). “Step two is a threshold inquiry,” McDaniel, 800 F.2d at 1031, acting as a “filter” to eliminate claims involving no substantial impairment, Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1987). In the Eleventh Circuit, “the finding of any severe impairment, whether or not it qualifies as a disability and whether or not it results from a single severe impairment or a combination of impairments that together qualify as severe, is enough to satisfy the requirement of step two.”

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

Bridges v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-02(c)

A medically determinable severe impairment, by very definition, significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform mental or physical work tasks. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). An ALJ errs where she finds that a claimant suffers a medically determinable severe impairment but fails to find that the impairment produces any work-related functional restrictions. Indoranto v. Barnhart, 370 F.3d 470, 474 (7th Cir. 2004).

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

Culler v. Massanari · filed 2001-05-22(c)

First, the law does not require that plaintiff’s mental and emotional impairments be disabling to warrant inclusion in the ALJ’s hypothetical questions to the VE; it requires only that they be severe , i.e., significantly limit her ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (defining a severe impairment); Hargis v. Sullivan , 945 F.2d 1482, 1492 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Testimony elicited by hypothetical questions that do not relate with precision all of a claimant's impairments cannot constitute substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s decision.” (quotation omitted)); Evans v. Chater , 55 F.3d 530, 532 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting “established rule that such inquiries must include all (and only) those impairments borne out by the evidentiary record”).

Subsection (c) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Timothy R. HINKLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-App · filed 1997-12-24(c)

At step two, the ALJ is to determine whether the claimant has an “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [his] ... ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

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

Vesta I. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1992-03-27(c)

To show a severe impairment, she must show that she has “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the applicant’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 person's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Handelman v. Massanari · filed 2001-07-19(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.

Washington v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-17(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).

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

Lawrence v. SSA · filed 2011-06-17(c)

At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation process, a claimant must demonstrate that he suffers from a medically severe impairment. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n. 5 (1987); 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1512 (c) ; 404.1520(a ) (4) (ii) . In order for an impairment to be considered "severe" it must "significantly limit[] [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

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

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). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. ... In sum, the record indicates that while Claimant may have suffered from medical impairments before his DLI, there is no objective medical evidence sufficient to overturn the ALJ’s determination that those impairments were not “severe.”

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, but not when it is only a slight abnormality with no more than a minimal effect on the ability to work.

Wheatman v. Colvin · filed 2018-11-27(c)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits his ability to perform basic work-related activities for 12 consecutive months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521 et seq., 416.909. 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). It is not severe if evidence establishes only a “slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities which would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to work.” Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 154 n.12, 107 S. Ct. 2287, 96 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1987) (quoting Social Security Ruling 85-28).

At step two, an impairment is not severe when it does not significantly limit a claimant’s mental or physical ability to perform basic work activities.

Underhill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-24(c)

Second, the Court notes that the VA’s disability rating, which was based on a finding that Plaintiff had a 10 percent, or in some cases zero percent, disability rating based on a series of impairments, is not inconsistent with the ALJ’s finding that many of these impairments were “non-severe” as that term is defined by Social Security regulations. See AR 837-39, 857-58; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(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).

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.

SWAIN v. SAUL · filed 2020-01-27(c)

An impairment is severe if it “significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” without regard to age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to show that a medically determinable impairment significantly limits the ability to do basic work activities for the impairment to be considered severe at step two.

Correa v. Saul · filed 2020-06-19(c)

To establish that a medically determinable impairment is “severe,” the claimant must show that it “significantly limits [his or her] 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.

Ruiz v. Saul · filed 2020-09-23(c)

As discussed below, the record contains sufficient evidence that Plaintiff had the severe impairment of schizoaffective disorder. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.921(a) (a severe impairment is one that significantly limits the physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities); Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005)(An impairment is not severe if it is merely “a slight abnormality (or combination of slight abnormalities) that has not more than a minimal effect on the ability to do basic work activities.”); see also Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996)(“[T]he two-step inquiry is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims.”).

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

Adlersfluegel v. Saul · filed 2020-09-28(c)

A severe impairment is one that significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities and has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) and § 404.1509.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it more than minimally affects a claimant’s ability to perform basic work-related tasks.

Lach v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-06(c)

By finding Plaintiff’s obesity a severe impairment the ALJ, by definition, found that obesity more than minimally affected Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work-related tasks. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522(a). However, the ALJ’s decision includes no limits in the RFC due to obesity. ... Once the ALJ found obesity caused some effect on Plaintiff’s ability to perform work-related functions, the ALJ was required to explain what those additional limits were and how those were incorporated into the ALJ’s RFC assessment.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits an individual's ability to perform basic work activities, so a severe impairment must be reflected in the RFC through some limitation.

Chavez v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-06(c)

“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 finding that an impairment is severe cannot square with a conclusion that it imposes no limitations. It is axiomatic that a severe impairment imposes limitations, and an impairment that imposes no limitations is not severe.” Desiree B. v. Saul, 2019 WL 6130814, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2019) (collecting cases).

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

Canino v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-31(c)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. As Plaintiff points out, an impairment is considered “severe” if it significantly limits an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522(a).

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

Potenza v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-21(c)

An impairment is considered “severe” if it significantly limits an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522(a). So, in deeming Plaintiff’s panic disorder with agoraphobia to be severe, the ALJ necessarily determined that those conditions caused significant functional work limitations.

Section 404.1520(c) does not require reversal when an ALJ identifies at least one severe impairment and considers the effects of other impairments at later steps.

Carpitcher v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-29(c)

As the ALJ found Claimant to have severe impairments, his failure to classify her neuropathy or herniation of disc C4–5 does not constitute reversible error.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) asks whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1.

Tate v. Astrue · filed 2011-05-05(a)(4)(iii)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Tate’s diabetes is not sufficiently severe to qualify as a disability under Appendix 1 to 20 C.F.R. Part 404. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Appendix 1 § 9.08.

At step three, once an ALJ finds a medically determinable impairment severe, the ALJ must decide whether it meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1.

Calabrese v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-11(a)(4)(iii)

When an ALJ finds that a claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is “severe,” the ALJ must determine whether the identified “impairment(s) meets or equals a listed impairment in appendix 1.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and § 404.1520(d) treats a claimant who does so as disabled without further inquiry.

Curtis v. Saul · filed 2020-06-15(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Each Listing sets forth the “symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings” which must be established for a claimant’s impairment to meet the Listing. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999). If a claimant meets or equals a Listing, the claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the Commissioner to determine whether, despite a severe impairment, the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the evaluation need not proceed to step five.

Morgan v. Comm Social Security · filed 2008-10-06(e)

At the fourth step, the Commissioner determines whether, despite the severe impairment, the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If so, she will be found not disabled and the analysis need not proceed to the fifth step. Only the fourth step is at issue here.

At step four, the disability inquiry uses the claimant’s residual functional capacity to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Villalpando v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-20(a)(4)

Claimant next argues that the ALJ erred in failing to find the claimant disabled under step four of the “five-step sequential evaluation process” used to determine disability. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4). The fourth step requires an assessment of the claimant’s residual functional capacity to determine if the claimant is disabled from doing past relevant work.

Section 404.1520(d) makes step three a determination whether the claimant’s impairments are severe enough to be presumptively disabling, such that further inquiry into work ability is unnecessary.

Chwarzynski v. Saul · filed 2020-06-25(d)

An ALJ’s step 3 analysis determines “whether the claimant’s impairments are ‘severe enough’ to be presumptively disabling—that is, so severe that they prevent a person from doing any gainful activity and make further inquiry into whether the person can work unnecessary.” Jeske v. Saul, 955 F.3d 583, 588 (7th Cir. 2020); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a).

Section 404.1520(d) requires an ALJ, at the third step, to determine whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Vaughn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-02-03(d)

Finally, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not properly consider whether she met or equaled any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 and that the ALJ failed to follow the disability sequential analysis outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). After review of the entire record, the court concludes that the ALJ properly followed the disability sequential evaluation analysis. Additionally, although the ALJ did not explicitly state that Plaintiff’s impairments were not contained in listing 12.07, such a determination was implicit in the ALJ’s decision.

Section 404.1520(a) does not require an ALJ to give equal weight to affidavits and live testimony.

Jerome F. NABER, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1994-05-31(a)

Nothing in the authority Naber cites (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) & 404.1571 (1993)) requires an ALJ to give equal weight to affidavits and live testimony.

At step two, an impairment that is not severe must still be considered if its cumulative effect with severe impairments further restricts the claimant’s work capabilities.

Cornell v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-23(c)

An impairment is severe for purposes of the disability calculus if it “significantly limits physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... Although an impairment is found not to significantly limit the claimant’s work functions at step two of the disability analysis, it nonetheless must be considered by an ALJ if it has the cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with impairments found to be severe, of further restricting the claimant’s work place capabilities.

Section 404.1520(a) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant's case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Rivard v. SSA · filed 2006-10-17(a)

“We consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled.”

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when making a disability determination.

Lockerby v. Saul · filed 2020-01-30(a)(3)

When making a disability determination, the ALJ has an obligation to consider all relevant evidence. See Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 869 (4th Cir. 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record, including evidence from before the alleged onset date.

WOODHOUSE EX REL. TAYLOR v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-05(a)(3)

Although the behavior evaluation in May 2005 took place prior to this date this evidence is still relevant and information the ALJ must consider. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

At step two of the disability analysis, findings about the severity of an impairment must be based on medical evidence.

Sutherland v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2017-02-10(a)(ii)

Step two findings must be based on medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(ii).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant record evidence, while § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires a step-two determination of whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(a)(3), (a)(4)(ii)

An ALJ must consider all relevant record evidence. ... At step two, an ALJ considers whether a claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Lewis’s anxiety is not severe, and there are no related mental limitations that the ALJ should have included in the RFC.

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

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(e)

At the fourth step in the evaluation process, the ALJ is required to determine a plaintiff’s RFC and, based on that determination, to decide whether a plaintiff is able to return to his or her previous work. McCruter v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 1544, 1547 (11th Cir. 1986). The determination of a plaintiff’s RFC is within the authority of the ALJ and along with a plaintiff’s age education and work experience, the RFC is considered in determining whether a plaintiff can work. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). The RFC is the most a plaintiff is able to do despite his physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). In determining whether a plaintiff can work, the ALJ must determine a plaintiff’s RFC using all of the relevant medical and other evidence in the record. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238-39; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... The Court finds for the reasons set forth above that the ALJ properly considered the all the relevant medical and other evidence in the record in making his RFC determination.

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

Williams v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-09-28(e)

A district court must review an RFC determination with deference and examine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion. “[T]he ALJ will ‘assess and make a finding about [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence’ in the case.’” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e)). Here, the ALJ pointed to medical evidence that supports the limitations that she included in her RFC determination, but she omitted from her RFC analysis (Doc. 7-3, pp. 23-25) discussion of Mr. Williams’s chemical-induced asthma, and at Mr. Williams’s administrative hearing, she did not pose to the vocational expert a hypothetical that included Mr. Williams’s chemical-induced asthma (Doc. 7-3, pp. 72-76).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an administrative law judge determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity to consider all medical opinions in the record together with other pertinent evidence.

John Dixon Walker, Jr. v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-02-11(e)

When determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity, an administrative law judge must consider all medical opinions in the record together with other pertinent evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

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

Burtis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-20(e)

Contrary to plaintiffs argument, see Dkt. No. 10-1 at 12-16, the RFC finding need not be based on a medical opinion, but can be based on other evidence, such as medical findings and activities of daily living. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (“we will assess the residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in your case record”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (explaining that the adjudicator will assess the RFC based on all the relevant evidence in the case record); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(1),(4) (evidence that can be considered includes objective medical evidence, such as medical signs and laboratory findings; as well as evidence from nonmedical sources, including the claimant, such as from forms contained in the administrative record).

At the RFC stage, § 404.1520(e) requires assessment of residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence, so a medical opinion is not necessarily required.

Goepel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-21(e)

Contrary to plaintiff's argument, see Dkt. No. 10-1 at 14, the RFC finding need not be based on a medical opinion, but can be based on other evidence, such as medical findings and activities of daily living. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (‘we will assess the residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in your case record”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (explaining that the adjudicator will assess the RFC based on all the relevant evidence in the case record); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(1),(4) (evidence that can be considered includes objective medical evidence, such as medical signs and laboratory findings; as well as evidence from nonmedical sources, including the claimant, such as from forms contained in the administrative record).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from all relevant medical and other evidence in the record, so opinion evidence is only one type of evidence that must be considered.

Foster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-29(e)

While Plaintiff faults the ALJ for not discussing every medical source statement, the ALJ was not required to do so. First, opinion evidence is only one type of evidence that an ALJ is required to consider. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e) (“we will assess the residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in your case record”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3) (explaining that the adjudicator will assess the RFC based on all the relevant evidence in the case record); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(1),(4), 416.913(a)(1),(4) (explaining that evidence that can be considered includes objective medical evidence, such as medical signs and laboratory findings; as well as evidence from nonmedical sources, including the claimant, such as from forms contained in the administrative record).

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

Armington v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-16(e)

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

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

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

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

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

Quale v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-16(e)

The ALJ determines the RFC “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e). ... Here, the ALJ determined plaintiff’s RFC based upon a review of the relevant medical evidence and other evidence in the administrative record. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of error is denied.

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

Stephenson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-09-21(e)

In accordance with the social security regulations, an ALJ is required to consider all relevant medical and other evidence in determining a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

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

Williams v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-18(e)

Moreover, the ALJ will “assess and make a finding about [the claimant's] residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence” in the case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). In this case the ALJ substantially ignored the record evidence of ongoing migraines and failed to make a meaningful provision for these effects in the RFC finding.

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

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(e)

At step four, the ALJ determines the claimant’s RFC, which is a medical assessment of what an individual can do in a work setting in spite of functional limitations and environmental restrictions imposed by all of her medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945. It is defined as “the maximum degree to which the individual retains the capacity for sustained performance of the physical-mental requirements of jobs.” 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, § 200.00(c). The ALJ determines the RFC “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e). ... Based on this record, the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence, as are the related hypothetical questions posed to the VE.

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

Gruber v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-16(e)

Thus, opinion evidence is only one type of evidence that an ALJ is required to consider. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e) (“we will assess the residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in your case record”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3) (explaining that the adjudicator will assess the RFC based on all the relevant evidence in the case record); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(1),(4), 416.913(a)(1),(4) (explaining that evidence that can be considered includes objective medical evidence, such as medical signs and laboratory findings; as well as evidence from nonmedical sources, including the claimant, such as from forms contained in the administrative record).

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

Laney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-16(e)

At Step Four, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... The ALJ did not merely rely on her activities. Rather, the ALJ explained that he determined the RFC based on “relatively normal clinical exams” (ECF No. 7, PageID #: 48) and activities inconsistent with more extreme limitations. Additionally, the State Agency reviewers did not suggest more extreme limitations and Laney had a conservative treatment history. This is substantial evidence for the RFC.

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

James v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-06(e)

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

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity at Step Four using all relevant evidence, including non-severe impairments, with a detailed explanation of their effects.

Sell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-27(e)

A LJ to consider “all the relevant” medical evidence in Sell’s case, including non-severe impairments, when determining Sell’s RFC in Step Four. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a)(2). This, as the Magistrate Judge and ALJ acknowledged, requires a “more detailed assessment” than the Step Two analysis of the paragraph B criteria that the ALJ had previously performed in her decision. ... The question before the Court, then, is whether the ALJ properly assessed Sell’s RFC at Step Four. The Court holds that, even when reading the decision as a whole, the ALJ’s analysis is deficient and remand is appropriate.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ, after a claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment, to assess residual functional capacity based on all relevant evidence.

Gutierrez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-23(e)

As described above, when ALJs find that a claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal any listed impairment at step three, they must assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity based on all relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... ALJ Swayze did not consider the effects of Gutierrez’s headaches on her residual functional capacity and thus did not follow the regulations above.

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

Abdallah v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-18(e)

Thus, opinion evidence is only one type of evidence that an ALJ is required to consider. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e) (“we will assess the residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in your case record”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3) (explaining that the adjudicator will assess the RFC based on all the relevant evidence in the case record); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(1),(4), 416.913(a)(1),(4) (explaining that evidence that can be considered includes objective medical evidence, such as medical signs and laboratory findings; as well as evidence from nonmedical sources, including the claimant, such as from forms contained in the administrative record).

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

Bradley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-08(e)

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

Section 404.1520(e) permits the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence in the case record.

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

But contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ considered the entire record before him, and is entitled to consider “all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e); see also §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3) (the RFC requires assessment of all relevant evidence in the case record).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ, at the residual-functional-capacity stage, to consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, and their total limiting effects.

Chait v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-25(e)

In rendering the RFC, an ALJ must consider any medical opinions along with all the other evidence of record. The ALJ must also consider all medically determinable impairments, including impairments that are not severe, and the total limiting effects of each. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a)(2) & (e); see Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1987).

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

Pixley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-28(e)

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

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

Maximovich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-18(e)

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

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to ground the RFC determination in the claimant's condition as a whole after evaluating all material information.

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

Instead, the ALJ need only ground his RFC determination on the claimant’s condition “taken as a whole,” Jamison, 814 F.2d at 588 (citations omitted), after evaluating all the material information presented, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a).

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

Danoff · filed 2026-02-19(e)

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

Section 404.1520(d)-(e) considers a wage earner’s residual functional capacity after finding that the impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment.

Hudson v. Sullivan · filed 1989-05-31(d)-(e)

Residual functional capacity is then used by the Secretary to determine how much gainful activity a wage earner can perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)-(e). Thus, residual functional capacity is not used to determine whether a wage earner can perform any gainful activity; it is relevant only after this determination is made.

Section 404.1520(a) establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims, with later steps reached only if the claimant is not found disabled at an earlier step.

Holmes v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-27(a)

The Social Security Administration established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether an individual is disabled and entitled to DI benefits under Title II or SSI benefits under Title XVI. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(a) and 416.920(a).2 If the ALJ determines a claimant is not disabled at any step of the process, the evaluation does not proceed to *1062the next step as the claimant is not disabled. Id. ... The ALJ erred at step one by failing to complete the analysis to determine Ms. Holmes’ potential onset of disability date and ultimately an actual onset of disability date. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Choate, 457 F.3d at 869; Howard, 255 F.3d at 580. This constitutes reversible error. ... Once the onset of disability date is accurately established, the subsequent steps in the evaluation process must be reanalyzed.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires a five-step sequential evaluation for determining disability.

Hale v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2017-03-30(a)(4)

Administrative regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation for disability determinations.

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

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

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

At step four, the ALJ considers residual functional capacity and past relevant work; if the claimant can perform that past work, the claimant is not disabled.

Natsis v. SSA · filed 2017-03-16(a)(4)(iv)

At the fourth step of the sequential analysis, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity, which is a determination of the most a person can do in a work setting despite her limitations caused by impairments, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), and his past relevant work, see id. at § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv)). If the claimant can perform his past relevant work, the ALJ will find that the claimant is not disabled.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires consideration of the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments and directs a finding of disability if an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and the duration requirement.

Williams v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-17(a)(4)(iii)

We agree with Ms. Williams that the ALJ misapplied the law when he failed to consider whether her conversion disorder met or equaled Listing 12.07. “At the third step [of the five-step evaluation process], we [will] consider the medical severity of your impairments(s). If you have an impairment(s) that meets or equals one of our listings in appendix I of this subpart and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires considering a claimant’s residual functional capacity and past relevant work; a claimant who can perform that past work is not disabled.

Breton v SSA · filed 2017-03-27(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s RFC and her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), (f), 404.1560(b). ... If the claimant has the RFC to do her past relevant work, including as generally performed in the national economy, she is considered able to do it and not disabled. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); 404.1560(b). ... The expert answered that a claimant with that RFC could still perform past relevant work as an administrative clerk. ... The ALJ permissibly relied on that testimony in concluding that Breton was not disabled at step four.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including a distinct residual-functional-capacity assessment after step three and before steps four and five.

Mitchell v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-20(a)(4)

The Administration has established a five-step evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (evaluation process for DIB); id. § 416.920(a)(4) (evaluation process for SSI). ... If, as here, the claimant fails to meet his burden at step three, the Commissioner must next determine his residual functional capacity (RFC), id. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e), in an “assess[ment]” that describes “the most [the claimant] can still do” after accounting for any limitations from medical impairments. ... Having done so, the Commissioner then proceeds to step four, where the claimant must show that, given his RFC, he is nonetheless incapable of performing his “past relevant work.” ... If the claimant succeeds here, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at the fifth and final step to show that the claimant is still capable of “mak[ing] an adjustment to other work” available in the national economy based on his RFC, age, education, and work experience. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v); Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992, 997 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

As revised, § 404.1520(c) may change the dispositive effect of an administrative finding about a claimant's ability to perform past work, so a pre-revision decision must be reconsidered under the revised regulation.

Brown v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 2001-10-19(c)

Recently, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c), subpart P, appendix 1, section 12.05(C) was revised. 65 Fed. Reg. 50,746, 50,772, 50,776, 50,780 (Aug. 21, 2000). This revision pertains to the central issue in Brown’s case—whether she had another physical or mental impairment under § 12.05(C). The Administrative Law Judge’s decision to deny benefits rested on the finding that Brown could still perform her past work as a housekeeper. This finding is no longer dispositive in light of the revised regulation. Because the revised regulation was not available to the ALJ when she denied Brown’s claim, we remand this case to the district court with instructions to remand it to the ALJ for reconsideration in light of the revised regulation.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through five sequential steps: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Colavito v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-21(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

' An ALJ considering a claim for disability insurance benefits undertakes the five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Under Step One, if the claimant is working and the work constitutes substantial gainful activity, the ALJ must find that the claimant is not disabled regardless of medical condition, age, education or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Under Step Two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment which significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Under Step Three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals the criteria for a listed impairment as set forth in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. 4, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Under Step Four, if the ALJ finds that the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work, the claimant will not be found to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Under Step Five, other factors, including the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education and past work experience must be considered to determine if the claimant can perform other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability-benefits claims.

Gallegos v. Apfel · filed 2001-01-19

Claims for disability benefits are evaluated according to the five-step sequential process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.