20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

At step four of the disability analysis, the claimant must show that she cannot perform her past relevant work as actually performed or as generally performed in the national economy.

Ingrum v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-09(a)(4)(iv)

At Step 4, the claimant must show that she could not do her past relevant work either as she actually performed it or as the job was generally performed in the national economy.

At step four, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Ergott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-08(a)(4)(iv)

As stated above, at step 4 of the Five-Step Analysis, the ALJ must determine whether Plaintiff retains the RFC to perform "past relevant work." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); ... Even so, the ALJ must make factual findings as to the physical and mental demands of Plaintiff’s past relevant work and determine whether Plaintiff’s RFC permits Plaintiff to return to such work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), (f). ... Accordingly, remand is appropriate so the ALJ can consider and adequately explain whether Plaintiff’s work as a dispatcher, is a composite job.

At step four, the regulation requires comparing a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work to determine whether the claimant can return to it.

Morlan v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-03-21(e)

At Step Four, the ALJ determines whether Plaintiff can return to his past relevant work by comparing Plaintiff’s RFC with the physical and mental demands of Plaintiff’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) places the burden on the claimant at step four to show that the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, evaluated against the residual functional capacity and the job’s actual or generally performed demands.

Lake v. Saul · filed 2022-03-23(e)

At step four, Plaintiff had the burden of showing that he can no longer perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e); Clem v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 328, 330 (9th Cir.1990). While the burden of proof lies with Plaintiff at step four, the ALJ must still make the requisite factual findings to support his conclusion. Clem, 894 F.2d at 330 (internal citations omitted). The ALJ accomplishes this task “by looking at the ‘residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands’ of the claimant’s past relevant work.” Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 2001) citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e). Plaintiff must be able to perform either the “actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job; or … [t]he functional demands and job duties of the occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national economy.” Id., 249 F.3d at 845 citing SSR 82-61 (emphasis added). The ALJ “is not required to make findings as to both.” Grim v. Colvin, 128 F.Supp.3d 1220, 1232 (D. Ariz. 2015) citing Pinto, 249 F.3d at 845.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential process, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work at step four.

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

SSR 82-61 clarifies policy regarding a claimant’s ability to perform past relevant work, and states that under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e), a claimant will be found to be “not disabled” when it is determined that he retains the RFC to perform “[t]he actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job” OR “[t]he functional demands and job duties of the occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national economy.” ... Therefore, regulations allow for the ALJ to make a finding of “not disabled” at step four based on the DOT description of past relevant work.

At step four, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform her past relevant work as generally performed or as she actually performed it; if she can, she is not disabled.

ASKANDER v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-31(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must consider the RFC assessment and the claimant's past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can perform her past relevant work either as generally performed or as she actually performed it, then the claimant is not disabled.

At step four, the Commissioner determines whether a claimant’s residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work; if it does, the claimant is not disabled.

Greer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-07(a)(4)(iv)

If the claimant’s combined impairments do not meet or medically equal the severity of a listing, the Commissioner determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) (the maximum work-related functioning she retains despite impairments) and if that RFC allows her to perform past relevant work at step four, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). A claimant is not disabled at step four if she can perform her past work either as it is generally performed in the national economy or as she performed it.

At step four, Section 404.1520(f) requires comparing the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work.

Fendler v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-08(f)

To that end, the Social Security Administration’s regulations mandate that, where “we cannot make a determination or decision at the first three steps of the sequential evaluation process, we will compare our [RFC] assessment . . . with the physical and mental demands of your past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). ... This Court finds Berry v. Astrue to provide persuasive authority for the position that the ALJ erred in not considering the effect his prescribed treatment and disqualification for a CDL had on his capability of performing his past relevant work as a delivery driver.

Section 404.1520 provides that when a claimant can perform past relevant work at step four, the disability inquiry ends and need not proceed to the step-five Medical-Vocational Guidelines.

White v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-09-27(f)

Because the ALJ properly determined that Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work at step four, the disability inquiry ends there and need not progress to an analysis under the grids. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument fails.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant’s residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work; if the claimant can perform that work, the claimant is not disabled.

Young v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-09-29(a)(4)(iv)

In the fourth step of the sequential determination process, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the ALJ determines that the claimant is capable of performing past relevant work, then the claimant is deemed not disabled. Id.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for deciding disability claims; at step four, a claimant is not disabled if the residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Slayton v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-11(f)

The regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Social Security provide for a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a Social Security claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... If the ALJ determines, based on the RFC, that the claimant can perform past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. Id. § 404.1520(f).

At step four, § 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ to compare the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work and find the claimant not disabled if the claimant can perform it.

Montani v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-11(f)

At step four of the ALJ’s sequential evaluation, the ALJ compares his or her RFC determination with the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... If, based on that comparison, the claimant is able to perform his or her past relevant work, the ALJ will find that the claimant is “not disabled.” Id. § 404.1520(f).

At step four, the regulation requires evaluating whether a claimant can perform past relevant work given the claimant's residual functional capacity, with the claimant bearing the burden to show inability to do so.

Corbett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, a claimant bears the burden of establishing that he is unable to perform his past relevant work given his RFC.

At step four, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s residual functional capacity against the demands of past relevant work to decide whether the claimant can return to it.

Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-07(e), (f)

To evaluate a claimant’s PRW, the ALJ must: (1) determine the claimant’s RFC, (2) make factual findings of the functional demands of claimant’s PRW, and (3) determine whether claimant’s RFC allows them to return to such work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), (f); SSR 82–61.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) directs the Commissioner to determine at step four whether a claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-10(a)(4)(iv)

If the claimant’s impairment does not match any of the listings, the fourth step is to determine whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) allows the claimant to perform their past relevant work. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant cannot perform their past relevant work, the final step is to determine whether the claimant can perform another job that exists in the national economy based on their RFC, work experience, age, and education. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). As stated, at this final step the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show there are no jobs the claimant can do. Poupore, 566 F.3d at 306.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether a claimant can perform the requirements of past relevant work.

Jones v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-28(a)(4)(iv)

Step four of the sequential evaluation process requires ALJs to determine whether a claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform the requirements of their past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). ... Regardless, the Court now finds that the objection fails to raise a clear error of law as to the ALJ’s step four analysis pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) and § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). The objection is DENIED.

At step four, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant can still perform past relevant work, finding the claimant not disabled if so.

Capers v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-31(a)(4)(iv)

Step four of the analysis requires an ALJ to assess whether, given the claimant’s RFC, the claimant “can do [her] past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). “If [plaintiff] can still do [her] past relevant work, [the ALJ] will find that [plaintiff is] not disabled.” Id. ... For these reasons, I find that the ALJ did not err in concluding that Plaintiff’s past relevant work was properly classified as an outreach worker.

Section 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work, and a claimant bears the burden of showing that they can no longer perform that work.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-15(f)

At step four, the ALJ must define a claimant’s RFC and determine whether the claimant’s past relevant work is compatible with that RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). The claimant bears the burden at step four of demonstrating that he or she can no longer perform any past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a), 404.1520(f).

At step four, § 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ to decide whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; if so, the disability analysis ends without reaching step five.

Ocasio-Cordova v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-26(f)

At step four, the ALJ analyzes whether a claimant’s impairments prevent him from doing his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... If the claimant can “still do this kind of work” which he did in the past, then the ALJ will find that the claimant is not disabled at step four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). Once an ALJ finds that a Plaintiff can do his past work and is not disabled, the ALJ will not proceed to step five. 20 CFR 404.1560(b)(3). Because an ALJ is to stop the analysis at step four and should not proceed to step five, the ALJ “will not consider [the claimant’s] vocational factors of age, education, and work experience or whether [the claimant’s] past relevant work exists in significant numbers in the national economy.” Id. Therefore, the ALJ committed no error when he did not discuss or analyze whether the Plaintiff’s past relevant job as a professor was a profession available in significant numbers in the national economy after he had determined that Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work at step four.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ at step four to determine, on a supported record, whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Walters v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-11(e)

At step four, “the ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s impairments keep her from doing past relevant work.” Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 852 (8th Cir. 2007); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ’s reliance on the VE’s testimony was improper and that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work. ... On remand, the ALJ must: (1) properly determine and support any finding that Plaintiff is capable of performing her past relevant work by articulating a rational basis for any such finding; or (2) evaluate whether the Commissioner has met her burden at step five of the sequential analysis to show that Plaintiff can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant’s RFC permits performance of past relevant work; a claimant who can return to prior work is not disabled.

Ha v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-12(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ determines whether a claimant has the RFC to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If a claimant can return to his prior work, he is not disabled. Id.

At step four, the ALJ must compare a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the claimant’s past relevant work to determine whether the claimant can still perform that work.

Plott v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-09-15(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ will consider a claimant’s RFC and the claimant’s past relevant work to determine whether the claimant “can still engage in the kind of gainful employment that [the claimant] has undertaken in the past.” Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to assess the claimant's residual functional capacity and ability to return to past relevant work.

Davis v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-19(a)(4)(iv)

At Step Four, the ALJ must assess: (1) the claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”); and (2) the claimant's ability to return to her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(f) ends the sequential evaluation at step four when a claimant can perform past relevant work, so the ALJ need not proceed to step five.

Marshall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-14(f)

Because the ALJ found Plaintiff able to perform her past relevant work, the ALJ properly found Plaintiff not disabled and had no need to proceed to step five of the sequential evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At step four, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to compare a claimant’s residual functional capacity with past relevant work to determine whether the claimant can still perform it.

Randolph v. Kijakazi(CONSENT) · filed 2023-12-18(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ will consider a claimant’s RFC and the claimant’s past relevant work to determine whether the claimant “can still engage in the kind of gainful employment that [the claimant] has undertaken in the past.” Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(f) places the burden on the claimant to establish that they cannot perform past relevant work, assessed by comparing the residual functional capacity finding with the work's requirements.

Velasquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-21(f)

The claimant bears the burden to establish that she cannot do any of her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). This assessment is made by comparing the RFC finding to the requirements of the work. Id. ... Here, the ALJ found at step four that Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work as a technical support representative. AR 30-31. Thus, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(b)(3), 416.960(b)(3). ... Therefore, the ALJ properly found, at step four, that Plaintiff is not disabled.

At step four, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant can perform past relevant work; if that work is not substantial gainful activity, the sequential analysis proceeds to step five.

Fuess v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-29(a)(4)(iv)

When a case cannot be resolved at one of the first three steps of the evaluation process, the ALJ must consider whether a claimant can perform “past relevant work” in light of her RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... If the ALJ were to apply the § 404.1575(a) tests and find that Plaintiff’s prior work was not substantial gainful activity, the ALJ would then be required to complete the step five analysis on whether there are jobs existing in the national economy that she could perform with her RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1 (July 2, 1996).

At step four, Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity and past relevant work; if the claimant can still perform that work, the claimant is not disabled, and one qualifying past occupation is sufficient.

Terrill v. Colvin · filed 2024-12-12(a)(4)(iv)

The issues raised on appeal all concern the fourth step in the five-step sequential evaluation process for disability claims. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). At step four, the ALJ is to consider its assessment of the claimant’s RFC and their “past relevant work.” Id. at § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). “If [the claimant] can still do [their] past relevant work,” then they will be found “not disabled” for purposes of their DIB claims. Id. ... As previously acknowledged, the ALJ only needed to find that Plaintiff could perform at least one occupation from her past relevant work, which qualifies as substantial gainful activity, for Plaintiff to not be considered disabled at step four. See Gorian, 180 F. Supp. 3d at 875–77.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the sequential evaluation to end with a finding of not disabled when a claimant can still perform past relevant work.

Weyerman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-25(a)(4)(iv)

The Court finds no authority for an ALJ to find a claimant disabled at step four and then make an unnecessary determination of disability at step five. Here, the ALJ was required to end the evaluation at step four and find that plaintiff was not disabled: ... (4) The five-step sequential evaluation process. The sequential evaluation process is a series of five ‘steps’ that we follow in a set order. See paragraph (h) of this section for an exception to this rule. 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. If we cannot find that you are disabled or not disabled at a step, we go on to the next step. Before we go from step three to step four, we assess your residual functional capacity. (See paragraph (e) of this section.) We use this residual functional capacity assessment at both step four and step five when we evaluate your claim at these steps. These are the five steps we follow: . . . (iv) At the fourth step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your past relevant work. If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled. See paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section and § 404.1560(b).

At step four, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires finding a claimant not disabled if the claimant can still perform past relevant work, so the sequential evaluation ends there.

Noirot v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-10(a)(4)(iv)

The Court finds no authority for an ALJ to find a claimant disabled at step four and then make an unnecessary determination of disability at step five. Here, the ALJ was required to end the evaluation at step four and find that plaintiff was not disabled: ... 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. ... (iv) At the fourth step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your past relevant work. If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled. See paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section and § 404.1560(b). ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) (emphasis added). ... Because the ALJ’s determination at step five is not authorized by the regulations, the Court will not address that finding.

At step four, § 404.1520 requires assessing a claimant’s RFC and past relevant work, and a claimant is not disabled if able to perform that work as actually or generally performed.

Allison v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-20(a)(4)(iv), (f)

At step four, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s RFC and past relevant work, including the associated physical and mental demands, to determine whether the claimant is able to perform the tasks of his or her previous employment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), (f). The regulations provide that if a claimant can return to his or her past relevant work as the claimant actually performed it or as it is generally performed, then he or she is not disabled. Id. §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1560(b)(3).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) places the step-four burden on the claimant to establish that the claimant cannot perform past relevant work given the claimant's residual functional capacity.

Lawson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-22(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, a claimant has the burden to establish that he is unable to perform his past relevant work given his RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); see also Wright-Hines v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 597 F.3d 392, 396 (6th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a claimant challenging a finding that she was able to perform past relevant work had “fail[ed] to provide [the court] with the factual record [the court] need[ed] to find in her favor”).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether a claimant can perform past relevant work.

Morey v. Bisignano · filed 2025-05-27(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the analysis, the regulations require the ALJ to consider a claimant’s “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); 404.1565(a).

At step four, the ALJ determines whether a claimant's impairments prevent performance of past relevant work; if the claimant fails to show an inability to perform that work, the claimant is not disabled for Social Security purposes.

Winter v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-25(f)

At step four in the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s impairments prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If the ALJ finds that the claimant has not shown an incapability of performing past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled for social security purposes. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

At step four, Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to consider the claimant's residual functional capacity and past relevant work.

Honey v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-09-23(a)(4)(iv)

When crafting a claimant’s residual functional capacity and assessing whether a claimant can perform their past work at step four of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must explain which level of work the claimant is currently capable of performing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)G)—(Gv); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(5)G)—Gi); Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460-62 (1983).

At step four, a claimant who can still perform her past relevant work is not disabled.

McBride · filed 2025-12-15(f)

Although Ms. McBride’s description of her cashier job shows there was a distinction between how the cashier job is generally performed in the national economy and how Ms. McBride actually performed it, a claimant is not disabled if she is able to perform her past relevant work either as she actually performed it or as it generally is performed in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1560(b)(2), 416.920), 416.960(b)(2); Fries v. Comm’ of Soc. Sec., 196 F. App’x 827, 831- 32 (11th Cir. 2006).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine at step four whether a claimant can perform her past relevant work.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-29(a)(4)(iv)

As referenced above, the ALJ’s task at step four includes ascertaining whether a claimant can engage in her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

At step four, if an ALJ finds that a claimant can perform past relevant work, the ALJ finds the claimant not disabled and proceeds no further in the sequential analysis.

JORDAN · filed 2026-02-06(f)

see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (if the ALJ determines at step four that the claimant can perform past relevant work, he or she “will find [the claimant] not disabled” and proceed no further in the sequential analysis).

At step four, a claimant bears the burden of showing that she cannot perform her past relevant work in light of her residual functional capacity.

Mangino · filed 2026-02-23(a)(4)(iv)

At Step Four, the claimant has the burden to establish that she cannot perform her past relevant work in light of her RFC.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) directs the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and permits reliance on vocational-expert testimony keyed to a supported residual functional capacity.

Melnik · filed 2026-03-06(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can perform past relevant work in light of the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... And where substantial evidence supports the RFC and the vocational testimony is keyed to that RFC, the ALJ may rely on the VE at step four. ... Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s step-four determination that Ronald M. could perform his past relevant work through the date last insured. Selian, 708 F.3d at 417 (stating “[i]f there is substantial evidence to support the [Commissioner’s] determination, it must be upheld.”).

At step four, the Commissioner determines whether, considering a claimant’s residual functional capacity, the claimant can still perform past relevant work.

Conner · filed 2026-03-03(a)(4)(v)

At step four, the Commissioner decides whether, given a claimant’s RFC, the claimant “can still do [his or her] past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). In other words, step four concerns whether a claimant’s impairments prevent him or her from doing work done previously.

At step four, an applicant who can perform past relevant work is ineligible for SSDI benefits.

Detz v. Greiner Industries, Inc · filed 2003-10-07(e)

Indeed, in order to obtain SSDI benefits he had to make this assertion; otherwise, his claim would fail at Step Four of the SSA’s analysis, as he would be capable of performing his “past relevant work.”

At step four, a claimant is not disabled if they can perform past relevant work as actually or generally performed.

Overton v. Social Security Adm. Office of Disability · filed 2020-01-21(a)(4)(iv)

A claimant is not disabled at Step Four if he can perform his past relevant work either as he actually performed it or as generally performed in the national economy.

At step four, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Nunley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-06(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) permits performance of claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). ... Because the vocational expert testified that Nunley’s past work was performed at the light exertion level, if asked about a person of Nunley’s age, education, and skill with additional limitations, the vocational expert may have testified that he could not perform his past work.

Under § 404.1520, a claimant who can perform past relevant work is not disabled, so the fifth step is unnecessary.

Abreu-Mercedes v. Chater · filed 1996-06-17(e)

With this determination, there was no need to reach the fifth step in the Commissioner’s sequential analysis.

Section 404.1520 does not permit the sequential evaluation to end at step four when the claimant's supported limitations preclude past relevant work.

Black v. Barnhart · filed 2002-12-24

Even if the job was part of the past relevant work, however, it was still error to stop the sequential evaluation at the fourth step, given the testimony of the vocational expert.

At step four, the claimant must show that an impairment prevents performance of former work.

Suarez-Linares v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-07-17(e)

The finding of the Commissioner in this case reflects an application of step four of the sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). At step four the initial burden is on the claimant to show that he can no longer perform his former work because of his impairment(s).

At step four, the Commissioner considers whether a claimant can perform past relevant work as generally performed in the economy.

Cameron v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-04(a)(4)(iv)

Cameron's contention that the hearing officer could only determine that he could return to prior work as generally performed in the economy at the fifth step of the disability analysis does not help him, Pl.'s Resp. 8, because this is in fact part of the step four inquiry, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) ; 404.1560(b)(2).

At Step Four, a claimant can be found able to perform past relevant work if she can do that work as it is generally performed, even if she performed it differently.

Wildman v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-06(f)

A claimant is not disabled to the extent that a claimant can perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) and (f). Past relevant work can be as the claimant actually performed it or as it is generally performed. SSR 82-61.

At step four, a claimant who can perform past relevant work as generally performed is not disabled.

(SS) Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-21(a)(4)(iv)

For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has not established that her past relevant work was a composite job. The ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff could perform past relevant work as a salesperson – pets and pet supplies, as generally performed.

At step four, the ALJ must account for a claimant’s severe impairment when assessing the ability to perform past work, or explain why it creates no functional limitation.

Graham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-14(a)(4)(iv)

As such, the ALJ did not properly reject Plaintiff’s purported impairments or limitations regarding visual disturbance in step four and was therefore required to include Plaintiff’s impairment in the hypothetical posed to the VE or otherwise explain why Plaintiff’s visual disturbance was not included in the RFC determination.

At step four, the ALJ considers the claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work.

Hughart v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-21(a)(4)(iv)

Accordingly, the ALJ’s step four determination that Claimant could return to his past relevant work as a warden and chief of police as generally performed in the national economy is not supported by substantial evidence.

At step four, an ALJ determines whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Mehaj v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-22(a)(4)(iv)

As discussed above, one of the ALJ’s functions at step four is to determine whether a claimant can engage in his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

At step four, a finding that a claimant can perform past relevant work must be supported by substantial evidence that the prior job qualifies as past relevant work.

Morales v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-26(a)(4)(iv)

Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ erred in finding at step four that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as an administrative assistant, and remand is required for further consideration on this point.

At Step 4, the section requires comparing a claimant’s capacity with the physical demands of the claimant’s actual past work.

Spence v. Bowen · filed 1988-03-28(e)

In sum, Magistrate Powers found and concluded, and this Court affirmed, (1) that the AU’s conclusion that Spence could return to her past relevant work was unsupported by substantial evidence — her past relevant work exceeded the physical exer-tional requirements of “light work,” which was the only kind of work the AU himself found Spence still able to perform; and (2) that the Secretary’s position in the litigation was based on an erroneous interpretation of “kind of work,” as that phrase should be interpreted under subsection 1520(e).

The section requires the Step Four evaluation to account for whether past relevant work exists in the national economy, allowing the claimant to proceed to Step Five when that work is obsolete.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-06-21(e)

Although we acknowledge that the literal language of the regulation governing Step Four appears to support the ALJ's decision to terminate the inquiry at Step Four, this regulation should be read, if possible, so as not to conflict with the statute it implements, see, e.g., Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 99 F.3d 991, 995 (10th Cir.1996), and if there is such a conflict, the regulation must yield.

At step four, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) directs an ALJ to use a claimant’s residual functional capacity to determine whether the claimant can return to past relevant work.

PETTEYS v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2022-01-07(a)(4)(iv)

As explained above, at step four ALJs use a claimant’s RFC to determine whether the claimant can return to past relevant work and is therefore not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

At the fourth step, the Commissioner must determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before deciding whether the claimant can continue in prior work.

Cervini v. Saul · filed 2020-05-21(a)(4)(iv)

As part of the fourth step, the Commissioner determines the claimant’s RFC before deciding if the claimant can continue in his or her prior type of work.

At step four, a claim may be denied without vocational expert testimony when the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Coleman v. Shalala · filed 1995-07-31(e)

Coleman's argument that the Secretary's decision should be reversed because the ALJ incorrectly failed to hear testimony from a vocational expert is without merit. The Secretary denied Coleman's claim at Step 4 of the evaluation process.

At Step Four of the sequential evaluation, the claimant bears the burden of showing that he cannot perform his past relevant work.

Ramirez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-30(e)

At Step Four of the Commissioner’s sequential evaluation process, a claimant has the burden of showing that he can no longer perform his past relevant work. See Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform the actual functional demands and duties of a particular past relevant job, or the functional demands and duties of the occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national economy.

At step four, the regulation requires assessing whether the claimant can still perform past relevant work, either as actually performed or as generally performed in the national economy.

Block v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(a)(4)(iv)

At Step Four, the ALJ (1) determines the claimant’s RFC, (2) evaluates evidence regarding the demands of the claimant’s past relevant work and (3) determines whether the claimant can still perform the past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), (e), 404.1560; ... A claimant who can still perform past relevant work “as previously done or[,] . . . as it is generally performed in the national economy,” is not disabled. ... Thus, an ALJ may find that a claimant is not disabled if either (1) the plaintiff can still perform past relevant work as it was actually performed or (2) the plaintiff can perform past relevant work based on the general requirements for such work.

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

Peddle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-07(a)(iv)

At step four of the disability evaluation, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant perform any of her past work considering her RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(iv).

At step four, the Commissioner determines whether a claimant with a severe impairment can perform past relevant work based on her residual functional capacity; if she can, she is not disabled.

Adams v. SSA · filed 2020-08-06(e)

Fourth, if the claimant has a severe impairment but the Commissioner cannot make a determination regarding disability based on medical evaluations and current work activity, the Commissioner will review the claimant’s RFC and past relevant work to determine whether she can perform his past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If she can, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At step four, the ALJ must assess the claimant's residual functional capacity, determine the physical and mental demands of past relevant work, and decide whether the claimant can perform that work despite the limitations.

Burdett-Pickering v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-25(e)

Step four of the sequential analysis . . . is comprised of three phases. In the first phase, the ALJ must evaluate a claimant’s physical and mental residual functional capacity (RFC), see SSR 86–8, Soc. Sec. Rep. Serv., Rulings 1983–1991, 423, 427 (West 1992), and in the second phase, he must determine the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). In the final phase, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has the ability to meet the job demands found in phase two despite the mental and/or physical limitations found in phase one. See SSR 82–62, Soc. Sec. Rep. Serv., Rulings 1975–1982, 809; Henrie v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 13 F.3d 359, 361 (10th Cir. 1993). At each of these phases, the ALJ must make specific findings. Winfrey, 92 F.3d at 1023. Here, the ALJ did not articulate specific findings at phase-two—i.e., findings regarding the physical and mental demands of the plaintiff’s PRW as a medical clerk.

At step four, the claimant bears the burden of proving that she cannot return to her past relevant work as actually or generally performed in the national economy.

Blanca Sagrario Mejia De Castellon v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-26(f)

At step four, a claimant has the burden of proving that she cannot return to her past relevant work as actually or generally performed in the national economy.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work at the fourth step, denying benefits if the claimant can still perform that work.

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

As stated, at the Fourth Step of the five-step analysis, the ALJ considers the applicant’s “residual functional capacity,” i.e., the ability to perform physical or mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations posed by the applicant’s collective impairments, see 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(e)-(f), and 416.920(e)-(f), and the demands of any PRW. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e). Disability benefits will be denied at the fourth step if the applicant remains capable of performing PRW, id., as well as at the fifth step if, given the applicant’s age, education, and past work experience, the applicant “retains a residual functional capacity to perform alternative substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotation marks and citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(c) and 416.960(c). ... The ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence in the record, as is the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s RFC permits her to perform jobs that exist in the national economy.

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work in light of the RFC; vocational-expert testimony may help classify that work as actually or generally performed.

Pedro B. v. Saul · filed 2020-03-03(e)

The ALJ was tasked at Step 4 with considering the nature, skill and exertional level of Plaintiff’s past work, and whether he has the ability to perform that past work as “actually performed” by him or as “generally performed” in the economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(b)(2); Manuel L. v. Saul, C.A. No. 18-451-MSM, 2019 WL 5445920, at **7-8 (D.R.I. Oct. 24, 2019). The ALJ can consider opinion testimony from the VE in order to classify past relevant work and to determine if the RFC accommodates any of that work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 404.1560(b)(2). Here, the ALJ found at Step 4 that Plaintiff was capable of performing his past work as an assembler “as generally performed.” (Tr. 30). Assuming the ALJ credited Plaintiff’s testimony that he lifted fifty pounds or more in his past assembler job, then that job “as actually performed” was medium and precluded by his RFC. However, the VE unequivocally identified this job as a light classification job. (Tr. 69). Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff could perform his past assembler job “as generally performed.” (Tr. 30). While the VE’s testimony and the ALJ’s Step 4 finding could have been more developed, the bottom line is that the finding has substantial evidentiary support in the record and thus must be affirmed. There was clearly no Step 4 error.

At step four, the ALJ uses the claimant’s RFC to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Obeng-Meyers v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-05(f)

Under the regulations, a finding at step four is based on the RFC determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (2017). If substantial evidence does not support the RFC determination, the VE’s “testimony, premised on such unsupported assessment, also cannot be considered as substantial evidence.”

Section 404.1520(f) requires a finding of not disabled when a claimant can perform any past relevant work as actually or generally performed.

McGhee v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-05(f)

If a claimant can perform any of his past relevant work, either as he performed it or as it is generally performed, he is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1560(b)(3), 416.920(f), 416.960(b)(3); SSR 82-61, 1982 WL 31387, at *1.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential process to determine disability, including evaluating whether an impairment is severe and determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

AMONS v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-06(c), (e)

Determination of whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act requires an ALJ to follow a five-step sequential evaluation. ... At step one, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful work activity. See 20 CFR § 404.1520(b). If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step two, and determines whether the claimant has an impairment, or combination of impairments, that is “severe” within the meaning of the Act, e.g., that imposes significant restrictions on the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 CFR § 404.1520(c). If not, the analysis concludes with a finding of “not disabled.” If so, the ALJ continues to step three. ... At step three, the ALJ examines whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals the criteria of a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of Regulation No. 4. If the impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a listing and meets the durational requirement (20 CFR § 404.1509), the claimant is disabled. If not, analysis proceeds to step four, and the ALJ determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is the ability to perform physical or metal work activities on a sustained basis, notwithstanding limitations for the collective impairments. See 20 CFR § 404.1520(e), (f).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires an ALJ to find a severe impairment before finding disability, and subsection (a)(4)(iv) requires assessment of remaining work capacity when at least one severe impairment exists.

Kirkland v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-05-22(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iv)

Before an ALJ can find that an individual is disabled, the ALJ must find that the individual has a “severe” impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the individual has at least one severe impairment, the ALJ will then assess how much work the individual can still do. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine disability through a five-step sequential evaluation, including consideration of substantial gainful activity, the severity of impairments, and the claimant’s residual functional capacity and past relevant work.

Wynn v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-08(b), (c), (e), (f)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act, the ALJ proceeds through a five-step sequential evaluation. See Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 470-71, 106 S.Ct. 2022, 90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986). At step one, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful work activity. See 20 CFR § 404.1520(b). If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, analysis proceeds to step two. At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment, or combination of impairments, that is “severe,” e.g., that imposes significant restrictions on the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 CFR § 404.1520(c). If not, the analysis concludes with a finding of “not disabled.” If so, the ALJ continues to step three. At step three, the ALJ examines whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals the criteria of a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of Regulation No. 4. If the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a listing and meets the durational requirement (20 CFR § 404.1509), the claimant is disabled. If not, analysis proceeds to step four. At step four, the ALJ determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is the ability to perform physical or metal work activities on a sustained basis notwithstanding limitations for the claimant’s collective impairments. See 20 CFR § 404.1520(e), (f). Then, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s RFC permits him to perform the requirements of his past relevant work. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, analysis proceeds to the fifth and final step.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the five-step disability evaluation to stop at any step that definitively establishes that the claimant is not disabled.

Rothe v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-22(a)(4)

The five-step evaluation process ends on any step that determinatively proves that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Accordingly, when the ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled at Step Two (AR at 19-25), his inquiry should have stopped there.

Section 404.1520(a) permits the disability evaluation to end once the Commissioner makes a dispositive finding at any step of the sequential process.

Love v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-03-04(a)

If the Commissioner can make a dispositive finding at any point in the review, no further finding is required.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process and requires assessment of residual functional capacity at steps four and five when a severe impairment does not meet or equal a listing.

KOISCH v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-20(a), (e), (a)(4)(h), (a)(4)(iii)

Defendant’s regulations require an ALJ to evaluate a person’s claim for disability insurance benefits under a five-step sequential process (the “process”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a); ... and (5) if not, whether he can perform other work in the national economy. ... If a claimant has an impairment that does not meet or equal a listed impairment under step three, but that is nevertheless “severe,” then defendant must assess the claimant’s RFC for use in steps four and ... five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). This rule operates to give due consideration to claimants whose impairments fall somewhere between steps two and three of the process. Otherwise, a finding of a listed impairment would automatically result in a “disabled” determination, while a finding that a claimant’s impairment is “not severe” would automatically result in a “not disabled” determination under the Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(h), (iii).

At step 2, § 404.1520 treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

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

At Step 2, an ALJ determines the "medical severity of [a claimant's] impairment(s)" and will deny any claim if an impairment, or set of impairments is not "severe." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). Impairments are deemed "severe" if they "significantly limit[] [the] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." Id. § 404.1520(c). ... The ALJ could reasonably conclude that because she was able to complete self care, manage finances, cook simple meals, live independently, and balance her daily medications, her ability to manage daily life was not severely impaired.

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.

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).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation, and a Step 2 finding that an impairment is non-severe is harmless when the agency proceeds to Step 4 and considers that impairment in determining residual functional capacity.

Henke v. Astrue · filed 2012-12-21(a)(4), (c)

Henke also argues that the ALJ erred by determining, at Step 2, that her salivary gland condition was not a severe impairment, and that this mistake justifies a remand. But the ALJ’s Step-2 determination regarding Henke’s physical condition was immaterial to the ALJ’s ultimate decision. Though the ALJ ruled that Henke’s physical problems were non-severe, she concluded that Henke had severe psychological limitations at Step 2, proceeded to Step 4, and considered all of Henke’s impairments—including her salivary gland condition—when making her residual functional capacity determination. Because the ALJ proceeded beyond Step 2, and considered Henke’s severe and non-severe impairments at Step 4, any purported error in the Step-2 severity determination was harmless.

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) makes severity a threshold inquiry; if the claimant has at least one severe impairment, the ALJ proceeds to the remaining steps.

Block v. Saul · filed 2019-08-01(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment ... or a combination of impairments that is severe....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). Step two is a threshold step and “[a]s long as the ALJ determines that the claimant has one severe impairment, the ALJ will proceed to the remaining steps of the evaluative process.” Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923, 926–27 (7th Cir. 2010). Here, the ALJ's failure to find Charles’s obstructive sleep apnea and depression and anxiety as a severe impairment at step two is not a reversible error because the ALJ categorized three other impairments as severe and proceeded to step four.

Section 404.1520(c) treats step two as a threshold inquiry: an impairment can be severe without automatically requiring significant or major limitations in the residual functional capacity.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-04(c)

The Commissioner determines whether a claimant is disabled by way of a five-stage process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 1990). ... Second, the claimant must show that she suffers from a medically determinable “severe impairment” or combination of impairments in order to warrant a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). A “severe impairment” is one that “significantly limits ... physical or mental ab ility to do basic work activities.” Abbott, 905 F.2d at 923. ... To the extent Plaintiff is arguing that the ALJ characterization of her migraines as “severe” at Step Two obligated the ALJ to include correspondingly significant or major limitations when formulating the RFC, such an argument contradicts the above cited Sixth Circuit law. In other words, simply because an impairment is deemed to have “more than a minimal effect” on the claimant’s work-related abilities, it does not necessarily follow that those effects will necessarily be significant.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to show that a medically determinable impairment significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

McGlinn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-09(c)

At step two, a claimant must make a threshold showing that her medically determinable impairments significantly limit her ability to perform basic work activities. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 145 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) makes step two a threshold inquiry: finding a severe impairment does not itself establish disability or end the sequential evaluation.

Grier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-11(a)(4)(ii)

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... In other words, a claimant cannot be found disabled at step two. ... Therefore, after finding Plaintiff had severe impairments at step two, the ALJ did not err by continuing the sequential evaluation process.

Section 404.1520(c) allows only a de minimis severity screen at step two of the disability evaluation.

Pratt v. Heckler · filed 1986-03-10(c)

This Court is persuaded to the same effect, and, since the present plaintiffs’ claims were denied at a time when the Secretary apparently regarded the severity regulation as,something more than a de minimis threshold, these cases must be remanded for reconsideration with the regulation’s application so limited.

Section 404.1520(c) permits a finding of no severe impairment at step two only when the impairment has no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Stratton v. Otis R. Bowen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services o · filed 1987-09-21(c)

While an agency’s interpretation and application of its own regulation is entitled to great weight, the application of a threshold severity regulation that is greater than de minimis is invalid under the terms of sections 205 et seq. of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq. (1983 & Supp.1987).

Section 404.1520(c) permits denial at Step Two based on a claimant’s ability to perform basic work functions, without a medical-vocational analysis.

Dixon v. Shalala · filed 1995-04-19(c)

Thus, Step Two allows the Secretary to deny a claim for benefits on the basis of a relatively simple threshold determination of the claimant’s ability to perform basic, generically defined work functions, without at this stage engaging in the rather more burdensome medical-vocational analysis required by § 423(d)(2)(A) (and applied in steps 4 and 5) — the determination that the claimant “is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).

At step two, the claimant must show that an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities; the severity threshold screens out groundless claims.

Aubuchon v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-23(c)

Granted, as the Commissioner notes, the burden of proof remains with a claimant to establish at step two that his impairments, or combination of impairments, significantly limit his ability to perform basic work activities.

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

Birkinshaw v. Astrue · filed 2007-05-22(c)

The inquiry at step two is whether plaintiff has one or more, or a combination of, impairments which is “severe” within the meaning of the Act and the Regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1523, 416.920(c), 416.923. ... Plaintiff need only show that an impairment would have more than a minimal effect on his ability to do basic work activities. ... However, he must show more than the mere presence of a condition or ailment.

At step two, medical evidence that an impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms can satisfy the de minimis severity threshold.

Cortina v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-06(c)

The ALJ’s finding based on the evidence that Plaintiff’s impairments could have reasonably been expected to produce the alleged symptoms along with the medical record is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of step two. Accordingly, the Plaintiff satisfied the de minimis showing.

At step two, a claimant must show that a medically determinable impairment significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Irwin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-18(c)

At step two, claimants must make a threshold showing that their medically determinable impairments significantly limit their ability to perform basic work activities. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 145 (1987); 2 0 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two, an impairment that does not limit basic work activities may be found nonsevere.

COPPERSMITH v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2024-03-31(c)

The ALJ’s decision cites to record support constituting substantial evidence for finding that Plaintiff’s impairments do not limit her ability to perform basic work- related activities, which is sufficient under step two. No more is required.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to proceed beyond step two when the evidence makes a disability claim nonfrivolous, even if treatment records have a gap.

Glanden v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-16(a)(4)(ii)

This cumulative evidence is enough to establish that Glanden’s claim is nonfrivolous and to require the ALJ to proceed to step three.

Section 404.1520(c) permits denial at step two only when an impairment does not significantly limit basic work activities.

Conway v. Bowen · filed 1987-07-27(c)

Only those claimants with slight abnormalities that do not significantly limit any “basic work activity” can be denied benefits at step two of the evaluation process. ... His denial of plaintiff’s claim at step two was therefore improper.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it limits a claimant’s ability to work by more than a slight amount.

Kessler v. O'Malley · filed 2024-11-14(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), “severe” means a significant limitation that interferes with a claimant’s ability to work. But courts construe “severe” to mean only more than “slight.”

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits basic work activities; the evaluation must continue when the evidence meets this low threshold.

Benton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-20(c)

At step two of the disability analysis, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has an impairment, or combination of impairments, that is “severe” within the meaning of the Act, in that it imposes significant restrictions on the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Here, the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff's depression and anxiety are non-severe impairments.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the SSA bearing the burden at the fifth step.

Davis v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-18(a)

There is a five-step evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. ... The claimant bears the burden of production and proof in the first four steps of the process. ... Only after reaching the fifth and final step does the SSA bear the burden of showing that jobs exist for the applicant.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate a disability claim through five sequential steps: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, ability to perform past work, and ability to perform other work.

McClean v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-30

In evaluating a claim for disability benefits, the ALJ must follow the five-step procedure set out in the regulations governing the administration of Social Security benefits. ... First, the [Commissioner] considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, the [Commissioner] next considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. If the claimant has such an impairment, the [Commissioner] will consider him disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience.... Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant’s severe impairment, he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the [Commissioner] then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform.

Section 404.1520(a) requires disability determinations to use a five-step sequential inquiry addressing substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Crawford v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-09(a)

To make this determination, one must employ a five-step sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f). Under this process, the ALJ must inquire, in the following order: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful employment; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing any work in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for determining whether a claimant is disabled.

Pulli v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-17

The Social Security Regulations (“SSRs”) provide a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant qualifies for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The ALJ must determine whether: 1) the claimant is performing substantial gainful activity; 2) the claimant has a severe impairment or impairments; 3) the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment contained in the SSRs; 4) the claimant’s impairments prevent him from doing his past relevant work; and 5) the claimant is unable to perform any other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

At step four, the claimant must show that they can no longer perform their past relevant work, and the ALJ must make specific factual findings supporting that conclusion.

Coburn v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-14(e)

At step four, “claimants have the burden of showing that they can no longer perform their past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 2001) (remanding where the ALJ made few findings and relied largely on the VE’s conclusions, because absent specific findings on the record at step four, there can be little meaningful judicial review). Although the burden of proof rests on the claimant in step four, an ALJ must make specific factual findings to support her conclusions.

At the third step of the sequential evaluation, the claimant bears the burden of showing that her impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Cobb v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-23(a)(4)(iii)

It is Plaintiff's burden to show that she meets or medically equals a listed impairment. Here, she fails to point to any evidence that would establish that her respiratory impairment due to asthma satisfies Listing 3.03. See Krull v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2016 WL 8451412, at *10 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2016) (“A claimant's failure to specifically detail, in a point-by-point fashion, how he or she meets a listing waives that argument.”). Even a cursory review of Plaintiff's medical records makes clear that her respiratory functioning was generally normal, and that her respiratory issues did not meet or equal Listing 3.03.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) directs the Commissioner to stop the sequential evaluation once disability or nondisability is established at a step.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-14(a)(4)

According to the Social Security regulations, the Medical-Vocational Guidelines only apply if an ALJ has determined that Plaintiff cannot perform her past work. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 (“The following rules reflect the major functional and vocational patterns which are encountered in cases which cannot be evaluated on medical considerations alone, where an individual with a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) is not engaging in substantial gainful activity and the individual's impairment(s) prevents the performance of his or her vocationally relevant past work.”); 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.”); see also Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir. 1996) (An ALJ’s finding that claimant could perform past relevant work negated argument that ALJ erred in application of medical-vocational guidelines). The ALJ did not err in finding that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work, and therefore did not err in declining to apply the grid rules.

The sequential evaluation ends when the adjudicator determines at an earlier step that the claimant is disabled or not disabled, so later steps—including past-work and other-work inquiries—need not be reached.

Magdziak v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-14(a)(4)(iv) (a)(4)(v)

SSR 82-62 addresses the Commissioner’s responsibilities at step four of the sequential evaluation process, when the ALJ compares the claimant’s residual functional capacity to the demands of his past work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Here, as noted above, based on his finding at step two that plaintiff was not disabled on or prior to his date last insured, there was no need for the ALJ to proceed to any of the remaining steps, including step four. The Court therefore concurs with the Commissioner that this claim of error is meritless. ... However, the assessment whether an individual can adjust to other work is made at step five of the Commissioner’s sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c). Since the ALJ found at step two that plaintiff was not disabled on or prior to his date last insured, this claim of error at step five also is meritless.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially, and the adjudicator stops once a claimant is found not disabled at a step.

Pierro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-24(a)(4)

Under the sequential evaluation of disability, when a determination is made that a claimant is not disabled at a certain step, the adjudicator will not go on to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through five sequential steps: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past work, and other work, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner at step five.

Meyers v. Astrue · filed 2010-01-14(b), (c), (d), (e), (f)

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. ... The first step is to determine whether the applicant is engaged in substantial gainful activity during the period of which benefits are claimed. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b) and 416.920(b). If the claimant is engaged in such activity the inquiry ceases and the claimant is not eligible for disability benefits. ... The next step is to determine whether the applicant has a severe impairment which significantly limits the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities as defined in the applicable regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). Absent an impairment, the applicant is not eligible for disability benefits. ... Third, if there is an impairment and the impairment, or an equivalent, is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations and meets the duration requirement, the individual is deemed disabled, regardless of the applicant’s age, education or work experience, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d), as, in such a case, there is a presumption the applicant with such an impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity. ... However, as a fourth step, if the impairment or its equivalent is not listed in Appendix 1, the Commissioner must then consider the applicant’s “residual functional capacity” and the demands of any past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the applicant can still perform work he or she has done in the past, the applicant will be denied disability benefits. ... Finally, if the applicant is unable to perform any past work, the Commissioner will consider the individual’s “residual functional capacity,” age, education and past work experience in order to determine whether the applicant can perform any alternative employment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). ... If the Commissioner finds that the applicant cannot perform any other work, the applicant is considered disabled and eligible for disability benefits. ... The applicant bears the burden of proof as to the first four steps, while the Commissioner bears the burden of proof on the final step relating to other employment. ... In reviewing the administrative finding, the court must follow the five-step analysis to determine if there was substantial evidence on which the Commissioner based the decision.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, with the Commissioner bearing the burden at step five to show that significant numbers of jobs exist that the claimant can perform.

McKinzie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-01-21(a)(4)

The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step process used to determine whether a claimant is disabled. ... The present inquiry concerns the fifth step of the sequential evaluation process—whether the Commissioner carried his burden of demonstrating that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that McKinzie can perform.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims, culminating in whether a claimant unable to do past work can perform other work.

Arruda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-01-29

The Social Security regulations set forth a five-step sequential evaluation process for adjudicating claims for disability insurance benefits. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The analysis proceeds as follows: ... Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the [Commissioner] then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform. ... In the present case, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) applied the correct legal standard in determining that Arruda was not disabled at step five of the sequential evaluation process, and substantial evidence supports this decision.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability to be evaluated through five sequential inquiries: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work.

Diaz v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-02(a)(4)

A five-step sequential analysis is utilized in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). Under this process, the ALJ must inquire, in the following order: 1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; 2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; 3) whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; 4) whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; and 5) whether the claimant is capable of performing other work.

Section 404.1520 provides a five-step sequential inquiry for disability claims, and the residual functional capacity determination is used at steps four and five to decide whether the claimant can perform past relevant or other work.

Jackson v. Berryhill · filed 2022-07-28(a)(4)(iv)–(v)

The ALJ then “performs [a] five-step, sequential inquiry of the [claimant’s] disability claim[,]” as set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... As the residual functional capacity determination is “used at step [four] of the sequential evaluation process to determine whether an individual is able to do past relevant work, and at step [five] to determine whether an individual is able to do other work,” SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2, the ALJ’s error thereby infects her determination as to the work the plaintiff is currently able to perform and is therefore not harmless.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires consideration of all relevant evidence without requiring discussion of every item, and § 404.1520(a)(4) describes the five-step sequence used to decide disability.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(a)(3), (a)(4)

An ALJ must consider all relevant record evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). But “there is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his decision, so long as the ALJ’s decision … is not a broad rejection which is not enough to enable [the Court] to conclude that [the ALJ] considered [the claimant’s] medical condition as a whole.” ... That the ALJ considered Jackson’s condition as a whole, including back limitations, is obvious. ... The ALJ did so here. ... To decide whether a person is disabled, the SSA uses a five-step sequential process, asking whether (1) he is engaged in “substantial gainful activity,” (2) he has a severe impairment or combination of impairments, (3) the impairment meets or equals the severity of anything in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App’x 1, (4) he can perform any of her “past relevant work” given his RFC, and (5) there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy he can perform given his RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The claimant has the burden of persuasion through step four.

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

Tobin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-14(a)(3)

The ALJ is required to consider all the evidence in the record when making a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record but does not require the written decision to discuss every piece of evidence.

Narvaez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(a)(3)

Narvaez appears to contend that the ALJ’s treatment of the snow-shoveling evidence violated the requirement of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 that he consider “all evidence in [a claimant’s] case record” in making his decision. Essentially, she seems to allege that the ALJ failed to consider all the evidence by not mentioning other notes the psychiatrist made in describing the periods of her “increased energy.” ... Narvaez has not shown that the ALJ failed to consider the other evidence included in the psychiatrist’s report. At the outset, it is worth noting that “an ALJ can consider all the evidence without directly addressing in his written decision every piece of evidence submitted by a party.” ... Furthermore, she has provided nothing to suggest that the ALJ did not consider the entirety of the psychiatrist’s report. And, in any event, as with the cane prescription, she has not even attempted to show how the ALJ’s alleged error caused her prejudice. Accordingly, the second objection does not warrant remand.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider the entire case record when making the disability determination.

Adamczyk v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-12(a)(3)

In making these determinations, the ALJ is required to consider the entire record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an adjudicator to consider all evidence in the record and, at minimum, discuss the evidence supporting the decision, uncontroverted evidence not relied upon, and significantly probative evidence rejected.

Harrold v. Berryhill · filed 2017-10-31(a)(3)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (requiring adjudicator to consider all evidence in the record). To demonstrate compliance with this requirement, an ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence in his decision, but must, at minimum, discuss “the evidence supporting his decision” and “the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon, as well as significantly probative evidence he rejects.”

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when making a disability determination, but does not require the ALJ to discuss every piece of evidence in the written decision.

Hawkins v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-30(a)(3)

However, while the ALJ is required to all of the evidence in the case record when making a disability determination, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3), he is not required to to all of the evidence in his decision. ... However, as previously stated, though the ALJ is required to review all of the evidence on the record, the ALJ is not required to refer to all of it in his decision.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the agency, in its five-step disability evaluation, to consider all evidence in a claimant’s case record.

Tanner v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2015-02-12(a)(3)

Given the inclusion of this additional evidence, the ALJ was obliged by agency regulations to reassess Ms. Tanner’s disability claim de novo through the date of the new decision.* See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (stating that the agency’s five-step sequential evaluation process requires that it consider “all evidence in [a claimant’s] case record” when making a disability determination).

Section 404.1520(a) requires the ALJ to consider all of the evidence in the claimant’s record when making a disability determination.

Brunson v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-07(a)

Plaintiff is correct the ALJ is required to consider all of the evidence in the claimant’s record when making a disability determination.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the decision-maker to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Bales v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-22(a)(3)

And each finding was specifically accounted for by the ALJ in his recitation of the evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision that you are disabled.”)

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when deciding whether a claimant is disabled, but does not require discussion of every piece of evidence.

Shiplett v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-10(a)(3)

Further, while the regulations require the ALJ to “consider all evidence in [the] case record when [he] makes a determination or decision whether [claimant is] disabled,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3), and we require the ALJ to discuss “the significantly probative evidence he rejects[,]” Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1010 (10th Cir. 1996), the ALJ is “not required to discuss every piece of evidence,” id. at 1009-10.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the agency to consider all evidence in a claimant’s case record when making a disability determination through the five-step sequential evaluation process.

Tanner v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2015-02-12(a)(3)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (stating that the agency’s five-step sequential evaluation process requires that it consider “all evidence in [a claimant’s] case record” when making a disability determination).

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

Reinert v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2019-08-13(a)(3)

The ALJ is required to consider all the evidence in the record when making a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant's case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20(a)(3)

An ALJ must “consider” all evidence in a claimant’s case record when making a determination or decision whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the agency to consider all evidence in the case record when determining whether a claimant is disabled.

Albaba v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-05(a)(3)

These hospitalizations occurred within six months of Plaintiff filing her SSI claim in July 2014. While Title XVI/SSI claims do not provide for retroactive benefits, like Title II claims, this evidence is part of the longitudinal evaluation required in mental impairment cases. This is an entire line of evidence of Plaintiff's mental and physical impairments, favorable to the Plaintiff, that the ALJ failed to consider (Tr. 37-43). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) ("We will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled."). Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 425 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672, 678 (7th Cir. 2009)) (ALJ obligated "to consider all relevant medical evidence and cannot simply cherry-pick facts that support a finding of non-disability while ignoring evidence that points to a disability finding."); Diaz v. Chater, 55 F.3d 300, 307-08 (7th Cir. 1995) (ALJ need not provide a complete written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence, but failure to consider an entire line of evidence falls below the minimal level of articulation required).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when deciding whether a claimant is disabled.

Montgomery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-06(a)(3)

“We will 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 the evidence in the claimant’s case record when making a disability determination.

Wiggins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(a)(3)

The ALJ is required to consider all the evidence in the record when making a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3). ... Although these records support Dr. Brown’s opinion and Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ failed to address these medical records in any meaningful way which would allow the Court to determine whether the ALJ properly weighed and discounted this evidence.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant record evidence, but does not require explicit discussion of every piece of evidence when the decision shows consideration of the claimant’s condition as a whole.

Edwards v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(a)(3)

An ALJ must consider all relevant record evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3). “[T]here is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his decision, so long as the ALJ’s decision … is not a broad rejection which is not enough to enable [the Court] to conclude that [the ALJ] considered [the claimant’s] medical condition as a whole.” ... Regarding urgency or frequency of bowel movements, the ALJ summarized the medical evidence, including records documenting Edwards’s reports of bowel movements to his treating sources. ... She did not have to specifically refer to every piece of evidence, see Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1211, and she did not—as Edwards implies—completely ignore medical records showing he complained to treating sources about frequent bowel movements.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant's record when determining disability.

Stacy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-27(a)(3)

The ALJ is required to consider all the evidence in the record when making a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence in the case record, including evidence from before the alleged onset date and after the insured period, when determining whether the claimant was disabled.

Onur v. Saul · filed 2020-05-20(a)(3)

The ALJ was required to consider all relevant evidence in the record – regardless of whether such evidence pre-dates the onset date or post-dates the DLI – when determining whether Claimant has met his burden. See, e.g., Alesia v. Colvin, No. 12 C 8395, 2015 WL 5062812, at *6 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 26, 2015) (“A medical report from before onset (or after the insured period) often can illuminate the claimant’s condition during the insured period, and the ALJ must consider and provide reasons for rejecting such a report in denying a claim”) (citing cases and to 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3)).

Section 404.1520(a)(8) requires the agency to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-06(a)(8)

While “an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence,” he must “discuss the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon, as well as significantly probative evidence he rejects.” Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(8) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record... .”).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record, including evidence predating the claimant's alleged onset date, when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2020-11-19(a)(3)

The ALJ is required to “consider all evidence in [the] case record when [he] make[s] a determination or decision whether [the claimant is] disabled,” including evidence that predates a claimant’s alleged onset date. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-10(3)

A district court must ensure that the ALJ has adequately developed the record in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(3), which requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when making a determination or decision on a claimant’s disability.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the Commissioner to consider all evidence in the case record when determining whether a claimant is disabled.

Gibson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-03-19(a)(3)

The Commissioner is required to “consider all evidence” in a case record in making a determination as to disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when deciding whether a claimant is disabled.

Koskinas, II v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(a)(3)

The regulations require an ALJ to “consider all evidence in [the] case record when [making] a determination or decision whether [plaintiff is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the Commissioner to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record when evaluating a disability claim.

Nickerson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-10(a)(3)

In evaluating a claim of disability, the Commissioner “will consider all evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1520(a) requires the Commissioner to consider all evidence in the record when determining whether a claimant is disabled.

Aponte v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-31(a)

“In making a determination as to whether a claimant is disabled, all of the evidence in the record must be considered.”

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

Mills v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-03(a)(3)

While an ALJ is certainly required to consider all the evidence in the record when making a disability determination, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3), as the Magistrate Judge explained, the ALJ clearly reviewed and considered the evidence of Mills’ February 9, 2017 visit to Dr. Colbath because he explicitly discusses that visit in his decision.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled, including relevant medical records predating the alleged onset date.

Austin v. Kijakazi(CONSENT) · filed 2021-09-20(a)(3)

The Social Security Regulations require an ALJ to “consider all evidence in [the claimant’s] case record when [making] a determination or decision whether [the claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3). Here, although many of Austin’s medical records are prior to her alleged onset date, they concern her back pain. Therefore, these records are relevant to Austin’s claims and should be considered when determining whether she is disabled.

Section 404.1520(b) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant evidence in the case record when making a disability determination, though the ALJ need not discuss every item if the record shows that all the evidence was considered.

Tedder v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-08(b)

As before, ALJs must still “consider all relevant evidence in the case record in reaching their disability determination.” Silva, 2020 WL 4220862, at *4 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b)). “Although an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, ‘[t]he record must demonstrate that the ALJ considered all of the evidence[.]’” Id. (quoting Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996)). “The ALJ must discuss not only the evidence supporting [his] decision but also ‘the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon, as well as significantly probative evidence he rejects.’” Id. (alterations omitted) (quoting Clifton, 79 F.3d at 1010).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ assessing a claimant’s RFC to consider all relevant evidence of record, including the frequency and duration of medical treatment.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-14(a)(3)

During the RFC assessment, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). ... The Court finds that the ALJ failed to consider all of the relevant evidence of record in determining Plaintiff’s RFC––namely, the frequency of Plaintiff’s medical appointments. ... Given the ALJ’s apparent failure to consider the frequency of Plaintiff’s medical appointments, the Court finds that the ALJ erred, and remand is warranted. On remand, the ALJ must consider the frequency and duration of Plaintiff’s treatments and explain how the course of treatment is reconcilable with the VE’s testimony on permissible levels of absenteeism.

Section 404.1520 requires the agency to consider all evidence when making its findings.

Skartados v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-10(3)

In determining whether the Commissioner’s findings were based on substantial evidence, the Court must ascertain that the agency considered all evidence in reaching its findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(3).

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

Gonzalez v. Saul · filed 2022-02-18(a)(3)

Of course, the ALJ cannot ignore evidence simply because it pre-dates a claimant’s onset date and must consider the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(3) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled.”); see also Johnson v. Sullivan, 915 F.2d 1575 (7th Cir. 1990) (noting that the “ALJ should consider the record as a whole, including pre-onset evidence…and post-onset evidence.”). But the ALJ did not ignore Dr. Rubinstein’s report here; instead, she properly “examined it as required” and “continued with additional reasons why she was discounting” the opinion.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the agency to consider all evidence when making its findings.

Hernandez, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-01(a)(3)

In determining whether the Commissioner’s findings were based on substantial evidence, the Court must ascertain that the agency considered all evidence in reaching its findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the record when determining disability.

Marshall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-15(a)(3)

The ALJ is required to consider all the evidence in the record when making a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

Section 404.1520 places responsibility on the ALJ to consider all evidence when evaluating disability at Step Two and later in the sequential process.

Pitts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21

Contrary to the Commissioner’s suggestion, it was the ALJ’s burden to consider all the evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, and build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and his conclusions at Step Two and thereafter.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant's case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Burner v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-28(a)(3)

Stephanie cites to no authority to support her position, see id., which is at odds with the ALJ’s obligation to consider all relevant evidence in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled.”); Patterson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 846 F.3d 656, 659 (4th Cir. 2017) (“In determining the most a claimant can still perform, the decision maker must evaluate ‘all’ relevant record evidence.”). NP Brubaker’s normal findings on mental-status exams were relevant to Stephanie’s mental impairments generally, as well as to her allegations that “depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and/or medication side effects. . . . cause a disabling degree of limitation in [her] ability to remain on task during the workday.” R. 18–19. Accordingly, I find no error in the ALJ’s partial reliance on NP Brubaker’s exam findings in his assessment of Stephanie’s RFC.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant's case record when evaluating disability.

Shelton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-03-31(a)(3)

However, the regulations require the ALJ to "consider all evidence in your case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). Plaintiff fails to cite the evidence from the record that undermines Dr. Harris' opined limitations. Just regarding Plaintiff's cervical degenerative disc disease, Plaintiff does not address cervical manual muscle testing results beyond the left sided C5 nerve root level, grip strength results, conservative treatment, or improvements with physical therapy. The ALJ cited all these along with some of the findings cited by Plaintiff. (Tr. 20-22).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the Commissioner to consider all evidence in a claimant’s case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled, but does not require discussion of every item.

Amundson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-15(a)(3)

Plaintiff argues that, by failing to discuss these two evaluations in his decision, the ALJ contravened 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(3) which requires the Commissioner to “consider all evidence in [a claimant’s] case.” ... The Court construes Plaintiff’s argument to be that if the ALJ had considered these evaluations, he would have found that Plaintiff met a listing for mental impairment. ... Plaintiff’s argument is not persuasive. First, even if the ALJ’s opinion did not discuss the neuropsychological evaluations, that would not, in and of itself, lead to the conclusion that they were not considered. “Although required to develop the record fully and fairly, an ALJ is not required to discuss all the evidence submitted, and an ALJ’s failure to cite specific evidence does not indicate that it was not considered.” Craig, 212 F.3d at 436 (citing Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998)).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when deciding whether a claimant is disabled.

Buonsignore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-09(a)(3)

A district court must ensure that the ALJ has adequately developed the record in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3), which requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when making a determination or decision on a claimant’s disability. ... Accordingly, the ALJ failed to support the RFC determination with proper medical evidence, and the Court remands for the ALJ to develop the record as it relates to Plaintiff’s physical impairments by obtaining RFC assessments from medical sources.