20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

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

Griffith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-21(a)(3)

An ALJ must consider all relevant record evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). But the regulations do not require an ALJ to adopt every part of an opinion they otherwise find persuasive. Under this standard, there was no error.

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

Reeder v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-21(a)(3)

Moreover, 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 Reeder’s claimed conditions.

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, but does not require discussion of every piece of evidence.

Long v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29(a)(3)

Long has also argued that the ALJ ignored Dr. Spruill’s records entirely, and thus reversibly erred by failing to “consider all evidence in [his] case record” before making a disability determination, as the regulations require. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3). It is true that the ALJ did not specifically cite or discuss Dr. Spruill’s records; however, “there is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his decision…” Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1211. While ALJs must analyze all evidence, they are generally only required to explain the weight given to “obviously probative exhibits.” Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981) (quotation omitted). As Long acknowledges, Dr. Spruill’s records spanned a period from mid-May to early July of 2018, with the latest note dated over five months before Long’s alleged December 12, 2018 disability onset date. While Dr. Spruill’s early notes do contain some diagnostic impressions, these appear to be based largely on Long’s own statements and records provided by other physicians, and the ALJ considered medical records from other sources from around the same period. (See Doc. 14, PageID.76 (discussing treatment records from May and August 2018)).

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

Occhiuzzo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(a)(3)

As noted, 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 an ALJ to consider all evidence in the record when assessing a claimant’s disability status and residual functional capacity.

Martinez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-27(a)(3)

ALJs must consider all evidence in the record when assessing a claimant’s disability status and residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 404.1545(a)(3). ... ALJ Allen complied with the requirements in his decision. ALJ Allen reiterated Martinez’s statements about his symptoms as they were described in Martinez’s application and hearing. AR at 14. ALJ Allen then contrasted Martinez’s subjective statements with objective medical evidence; evidence of Martinez’s treatment and how consistently he complied with it; results of Martinez’s physical examination in August 2019; and opinions of physicians and a psychologist from the state agency. AR at 14–16.

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.

Vigil v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-29(a)(3)

The ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff’s alleged gastric impairments as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). Because the ALJ did not account for Plaintiff’s alleged gastric impairment in his RFC, and because a reasonable ALJ could have concluded that the alleged gastric impairments called for a more limited RFC, the Court cannot find that this error was harmless.

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

Knoth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-06(a)(3)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must “consider all evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3), and the regulations governing Plaintiff’s applications, i.e., filed after March 27, 2017, require that an ALJ consider all medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings in the record. ... In this case, the ALJ wholly failed to discuss the additional treatment notes and Ms. White’s August 2020 opinion.

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

Bailey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-08(a)(3)

The ALJ is required to consider all of 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(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence when making a disability determination.

Hahn v. Saul · filed 2023-08-03(a)(3)

Indeed, the ALJ’s reliance on Dr. Asad’s opinion to support a preferred administrative conclusion is flawed under § 404.1520(a)(3), which requires that an ALJ consider all evidence when making a disability determination.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant evidence in the record, but an ALJ need not discuss each item individually if the decision shows consideration of the claimant’s condition as a whole.

Griffis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-28(a)(3)

An ALJ must consider all relevant record evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 404.1520b. 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.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up).

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

Gonzales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-03(a)(3)

An ALJ must consider all evidence in the record and cannot ignore evidence of an impairment presented by the claimant. See Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1456 (9th Cir. 1984); 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.”).

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

Vanderford v. Saul · filed 2024-02-02(a)(3)

Regardless of the AOD, the ALJ is required to “consider all evidence in [the claimant’s] case record when [they] make a determination or decision whether [the claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

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

Perla v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-02(a)(3)

The Social Security regulations provide that an ALJ “will consider all evidence in [a claimant’s] case record when [making] a determination or decision whether [the claimant is] disabled.” Lewis v. Saul, No. DCN-19-2298, 2021 WL 1040512, at *3 (D.S.C. Mar. 18, 2021) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3)).

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

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-29(a)(3)

Post-DLI evidence is not automatically barred from an ALJ’s consideration, Bird, 699 F.3d at 340, and the Social Security regulations provide that an ALJ “will consider all evidence in [a claimant’s] case record when [making] a determination or decision whether [the claimant is] disabled,” Lewis v. Saul, No. DCN-19-2298, 2021 WL 1040512, at *3 (D.S.C. Mar. 18, 2021) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3)).

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

Ludi v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-23(a)(3)

“The regulations require the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when he makes a determination or decision whether claimant is disabled.” Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1166 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3)) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). ... But to satisfy his duty, the ALJ must meaningfully consider all the evidence and, in particular, must discuss the “significantly probative” evidence in favor of disability which the ALJ rejects. Clifton, 79 F.3d at 1010. ... Thus, the ALJ’s consideration of the medical records omitted significantly probative evidence supporting Plaintiff's claims of disability. The Court reverses for the ALJ to consider this evidence on remand.

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

Nekita Dawn Hall v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-19(a)(3)

The ALJ must “consider all evidence” in the case record when making a decision about whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520b).

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

Lal v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-14(a)(3)

While the Court agrees that the ALJ did not specifically cite records from the period between June 2016 and June 2020 in her evaluation of Dr. Ale’s opinion, the ALJ’s conclusions are, nevertheless, a reasonable reading of the record. Moreover, the ALJ’s decision contains citations to the entire record, which makes clear to the Court that she considered the entire record in making the disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (stating that the ALJ is required to evaluate all of the evidence in the record when making a disability determination).

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

Draeger v. O'Malley · filed 2025-06-27(a)(3)

Moreover, the ALJ must consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record when making a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3); 416.920(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the record, but it does not require the ALJ to explicitly discuss or make findings about a lay opinion.

(SS) Tiamiyu v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-01(a)(3)

Under the regulations, ALJs must indeed “consider” all evidence in the record, and must follow specific guidelines about how to “articulate [the] consideration” of medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 404.1520c(b). This suggests that an ALJ may consider a lay opinion, like Mr. Hamid Tiamiyu’s Function Report, without explicitly discussing it or making any related findings in the written decision.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to consider other evidence when the claimant's impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment.

Karam v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-03(e)

As a reminder, ALJ must consider “other evidence” when a “claimant’s impairment(s) does not meet or equal a listed impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the agency to consider all evidence in the case record, but an ALJ need not expressly discuss every item when substantial evidence supports the decision.

Beach v. Office of Appellate Operations · filed 2025-08-15(a)(3)

The SSA has promised DIB and SSI claimants that it “will consider all evidence in [the] case record” when determining disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3). However, “the ALJ need not expressly mention every piece of evidence” he or she considered in the written opinion “so long as the overall decision was supported by substantial evidence.” ... Here, the ALJ considered and discussed extensive record evidence regarding Beach’s physical and mental impairments, including, but not limited to, her surgeries, knee problems, blood pressure, PTSD, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and panic attacks. (AR 60–74.)

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant's case record but does not require the ALJ to explicitly mention every piece of evidence in the decision.

Bisignano · filed 2026-01-13(a)(3)

The applicable regulations require ALJs to "consider all evidence in [the claimant's] case record[,]", 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3), but do not require them to explicitly mention every piece of record evidence in the decision, see Durakovic v. Colvin, No. 3:12-CV-6, 2014 WL 1293427, *8 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 3014) (collecting cases).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the claimant’s entire medical record, but does not require the written decision to mention every piece of evidence.

Linder · filed 2026-01-22(a)(3)

Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(B), an ALJ must consider a claimant’s entire medical record before rendering a decision. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). This does not mean, however, that an ALJ’s written decision must mention every piece of evidence in the record.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record, which may include evidence from outside the period of disability.

Boles · filed 2026-02-04(a)(3)

First, an ALJ considers “all evidence in [the] case record” when determining whether an applicant is disabled, which may include evidence from outside the period of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not err by considering medical records that pre-dated the alleged period of disability.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the agency to consider all evidence in the case record, while the RFC is assessed using all relevant evidence.

Pirtle · filed 2026-03-04(a)(3)

Social Security regulations require the agency to develop a “complete medical history for at least the 12 months preceding the month” in which an application is filed, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(b)(1), and “consider all evidence in the case record” when making a determination, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3), but specify that the RFC will be assessed “based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (emphasis added). ... Accordingly, although the ALJ was permitted to consider the records in his decision, his failure to explicitly discuss those records in the context of his symptom analysis did not deprive his findings of the support of substantial evidence.

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

Bridges · filed 2026-03-12(a)(3)

The SSA has promised DIB claimants that it “will consider all evidence in [the] case record” when determining disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3). ... The Court finds that the ALJ not only considered Plaintiff’s severe and non-severe medically determinable impairments in formulating her RFC, the ALJ also explained in detail how each impairment affects Plaintiff’s RFC. (see AR at 23–28.)

Section 404.1520(a)(8) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence in the claimant’s case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Hrycko · filed 2026-03-20(a)(8)

The regulations provide that in order to make a decision as to whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider all of the relevant evidence in that claimant’s case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(8).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires consideration of all evidence in the case record, including medical opinions.

Robinson v. Barnhart · filed 2006-12-11(a)(3)

The ALJ’s failure to consider and evaluate this opinion constitutes legal error. Commission regulations specifically state that all evidence in a case record will be considered.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider lay statements about a claimant’s symptoms and make findings about them.

Linse v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-02(a)(3)

Thus, the ALJ must consider lay statements and make findings as to the lay statements about the Plaintiff’s symptoms.

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

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-27(a)(3)

In any event, the ALJ did not solely rely on Dr. Haynes’ opinion with respect to seizures when assessing Plaintiff’s RFC, nor could she. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (directing that an ALJ must “consider all evidence in [a claimant’s] case record” when making a disability determination).

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

Grant v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-28(a)(3)

Instead, faced with the strength test results, the ALJ was only required to consider them.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record; disregarding a medical opinion may require remand when the error is not harmless.

Vigh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-22(a)(3)

In making a disability determination, an ALJ must consider “all evidence in [the] case record….” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3). ... However, this Court cannot conclude that the ALJ’s failure to consider any portion of Nurse Mates’s opinion can be regarded as harmless error. ... The Court therefore concludes that the matter must be remanded to the Commissioner for consideration in the first instance of Nurse Mates’s opinions and their effect, if any, on Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the agency to consider all evidence before it when deciding whether a claimant is disabled.

Sandoval v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-28(a)(3)

By addressing each medical source and citing specific evidence which he believed showed the supportability and consistency of those sources’ opinions with the record, ALJ Gontis satisfied the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 404.1520c and supported his findings with more than a scintilla of evidence.

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

Thorpe v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-01(a)(3)

“All evidence” under § 404.1520(a)(3) includes medical records pre-dating a claimant’s alleged onset date.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the Commissioner to consider record evidence predating the alleged onset of disability when it is relevant to the claim.

Hatley v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-16(a)(3)

That some of this evidence pre-dates the period at issue does not necessarily make it irrelevant. See Cotton v. Colvin, No. 5:14-CV-425-FL, 2015 WL 5714912, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2015) (“Where evidence predating the alleged date of disability is made part of the record, the regulations require the Commissioner to consider that evidence.” (first citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3); and then citing Vandenboom v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 745, 750 (8th Cir. 2005))).

Section 404.1520 requires consideration of all record evidence, including relevant evidence predating the alleged disability onset date.

O'Malley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-09-27

Upon remand, the ALJ should appropriately assess all evidence of record (including records and opinion evidence predating Plaintiffs alleged onset date); determine Plaintiffs RFC based upon the substantial evidence of record; and, after utilizing a vocational expert or medical ad-visor if appropriate, determine Plaintiffs disability status anew.

At step five, the regulation requires determining whether the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience permit adjustment to other work, with the Commissioner bearing the burden to show a significant number of available jobs.

McGuffin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(a)(4)(v)

At Step 5, the ALJ has the burden of demonstrating there exist a significant number of jobs in the local, regional, and national economies that the claimant can perform, given his or her residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(c), 416.960(c) (2019); Jordan, 548 F.3d at 423.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Cindy F. v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-13(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, "taking into consideration the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience." ... In the absence of binding precedent, and given the Ninth Circuit’s characterization of 25,000 jobs as a "close call," the Court finds 7,400 jobs in the national economy does not constitute a significant number of jobs. ... Accordingly, the ALJ failed to meet the Commissioner’s step five burden.

At the fifth step, the Commissioner must show that a significant number of jobs the claimant can perform exist in the national economy; if they do, the claimant is not disabled.

Teague v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-08-27(a)(4)(v)

At the fifth step, the Commissioner bears the burden of proving that a significant number of jobs that the claimant can perform exist in the national economy. ... If a significant number of jobs exist, then the claimant is not disabled.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the Commissioner, at step five of the sequential evaluation, to show that jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform before finding the claimant not disabled.

Marshall v SSA · filed 2015-01-20(a)(4)

The ALJ denied Marshall’s claim at Step Five of the sequential process prescribed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... At that stage, the Commissioner must “demonstrate that there are jobs in the national economy that [the] claimant can perform” before she may find that the claimant is not disabled.

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Vining v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-01(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that there is a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

At step five, the Commissioner must find a claimant disabled if the claimant cannot adjust to other work available in significant numbers in the national economy; 15,000 to 16,000 national jobs without regional-job evidence is insufficient.

Llewellyn-Discenza v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-02-24(g)(1)

At step five, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. ... If the claimant is not capable of adjusting to other work, analysis concludes with a finding that the claimant is disabled and is therefore entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1). ... Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the reasonable interpretation of the relevant authority is that 15,000 to 16,000 national jobs, with no consideration of regional jobs, does not constitute a significant number under the statute.

At the fifth step, the Commissioner must show that, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity and other factors, a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Timmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-07-09(a)(4)(V)

At the fifth step, the Commissioner bears the burden to show that, in light of the claimant’s RFC and other factors, there exist in the national economy a significant number of jobs the claimant can perform. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1180; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(V), 416.920(a)(4)(V). If such jobs exist, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a).

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Ahmad v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2013-07-23(a)(4)(v)

This final step places upon the Commissioner the burden of showing that Ahmad is capable of performing other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v) & (g), 404.1560(c), 416.920(a)(4)(v) & (g), 416.960(c). ... In light of our determination in Craigie v. Bowen, 835 F.2d 56, 58 (3d Cir. 1987), that 200 jobs in the regional economy was a “clear indication” that other meaningful work in the national economy existed, we conclude that the ALJ did not err by concluding that the 569 jobs available as a surveillance system monitor was evidence of other work in significant numbers in the national economy.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires the Commissioner to show that a claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience; the court held that 7,400 national jobs was not a significant number.

Cindy F. v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-13(a)(4)(v)

5. Considering the claimant's RFC and age, education, and work experience, is the claimant able to make an adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy? If so, then the claimant is not disabled. ... In the absence of binding precedent, and given the Ninth Circuit's characterization of 25,000 jobs as a "close call," the Court finds 7,400 jobs in the national economy does not constitute a significant number of jobs.

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

PAUL v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-09-30(g)

The ALJ reached Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than his past relevant work.

Section 404.1520(g) shifts the burden to the Commissioner at step five to show that a claimant, considering age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, can perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

BUCCELLATO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-11-14(g)

Step Five: At this point, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that the claimant, considering his age, education, work experience, and RFC, is capable of performing jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); see also Poulos v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 88, 91-92 (3d Cir. 2007). If so, benefits will be denied; if not, they will be awarded.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity.

GODSCHALL v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2019-12-20(a)(4)(v)

At step 5, it was the Commissioner’s burden, not Godschall’s, to show that jobs exist in significant number in the national economy that he could perform consistent with his age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v); see also Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 632, 634 (3d Cir. 2010).

At the final step, the Commissioner must demonstrate that significant employment exists in the national economy for a claimant with the claimant’s restrictions.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-12(g)

They are the kinds of vague answers that strike me “as the agency taking a ‘trust me’ approach rather than – as required by the statute and regulations – carrying its burden to demonstrate that significant employment exists in the national economy for a person with this claimant’s restrictions.” Id. at 823 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)).

Section 404.1520(g) shifts the burden to the Commissioner at Step Five to show that a claimant can perform other work consistent with the claimant's impairments, age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity.

SWAIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-09-09(g)

At Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that the claimant can perform other work consistent with their medical impairments, age, education, past work experience, and RFC. Jd. If the Commissioner cannot satisfy this burden, the claimant will receive disability insurance benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404,1520(g).

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of proof to show that the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-02-08(g)

The ALJ followed the well known five-step sequential evaluation process set forth in regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 in determining Palmer’s eligibility for the benefits he sought. When the ALJ reached the last two steps of the process he determined that, although Palmer could not perform his past relevant work, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform, a conclusion that the ALJ reached taking into account relevant vocational factors. In these findings the ALJ set forth the types of jobs that Palmer could perform. The ALJ’s conclusion on the point required that he find that because Palmer could make that employment adjustment he was not disabled. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A), (d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). ... In point of fact, we recently have indicated that the Commissioner has the burden of proof at step five. See Smith, 2010 WL 4720881, at *1; see also Poulos v. Comm’r, 474 F.3d 88, 92 (3d Cir. 2001).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) ends the sequential disability evaluation once a step produces a definitive determination of disability or non-disability.

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 establishes the five-step sequential analysis used to determine whether a claimant is disabled.

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

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

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

Griffo v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-10(a)(4)

Social security regulations prescribe a five-step sequential analysis for evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). Under this approach, 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(c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Kalmbach v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-01-07(c)

Severe impairments are impairments that significantly limit a claimant’s “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, with the inquiry ending when disability or non-disability can be determined; at step three, a qualifying or medically equivalent listed impairment establishes disability.

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

In determining whether a person is disabled, the Commissioner is required to perform a five-step sequential analysis. ... If a finding of disability or non-disability can be made at any point in the sequential process, the Commissioner will not review the claim further. ... If the claimant’s impairments are severe, the Commissioner, at step three, compares the claimant’s impairments to a list of impairments that are presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. ... When a claimant’s impairment or its equivalent matches an impairment in the listing, the claimant is presumed disabled. ... If a claimant’s impairment, either singly or in combination, fails to meet or medically equal any listing, the analysis continues to steps four and five.

At step three, § 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant meets or equals a listed impairment through a substantive analysis that identifies the listing and addresses its criteria or equivalent severity.

Catchings v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-28(d)

At step three of the disability analysis, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... In deciding whether a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment, the ALJ must identify the particular listing at issue and offer more than a perfunctory analysis of whether the claimant satisfies the criteria for the listing or has symptoms equal in severity to those in the listing.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the adjudicator at step three to determine whether a claimant’s severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Clark v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-25(a)(4)(iii)

If the ALJ finds the impairment to be severe, then he should determine whether the claimant’s condition “meets or equals” an impairment listed as disabling in the regulations. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); see also id. § 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when, alone or in combination, it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work skills.

Williams v. Asture · filed 2011-03-03(c)

Impairments, alone or in combination, are severe if they “‘significantly limit’ the claimant’s ‘physical or mental ability to do basic work skills.’” Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)).

At step five, § 404.1520(g) requires consideration of the claimant’s residual functional capacity when determining whether the claimant can perform other work.

Herring v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-22(g)

As provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g) and § 416.960(c), step five requires consideration of Herring’s RFC, which is defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) and § 416.945(a)(1), as "the most you can still do despite your limitations.” This assessment requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments of which the ALJ is aware, including medically determinable impairments that are not severe.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including finding no disability at step one when the claimant engages in substantial gainful activity and requiring a severe impairment to proceed past step two.

Russo v. Comm Social Security · filed 2011-04-06(a)(4)(i), (c)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled and thus entitled to benefits, the Social Security Administration has promulgated a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. According to this process: ... First, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged disability onset date. [20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b)]. If not, the Commissioner next determines whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that is severe. Id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... Here, at step one, the ALJ determined that Russo had engaged in substantial gainful employment as a data entry clerk from the alleged disability onset date of November 15, 2005 until February 2, 2006 and was thus not eligible for benefits prior to February 3, 2006. (Appx. at 30.); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i) (claimant not disabled if engaging in substantial gainful activity). ... At step two, the ALJ found that Russo had “severe impairments”: affective disorder and anxiety disorder. (Id. at 31.); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Our review of the ALJ’s decision satisfies us that it was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential evaluation process to decide whether a claimant is disabled.

Doepke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-04-07

The ALJ was required to follow a “five-step sequential evaluation process . . .to decide whether [Doepke was] disabled.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The ALJ properly followed that process.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) establishes a five-step sequential process for determining disability, including a step-two requirement that the claimant show a severe impairment or combination of impairments; impairments are severe when they significantly limit basic work abilities.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-04-11(a)(4), (c)

The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step process used to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... At step two of the sequential analysis, the claimant bears the burden of proving that she has a severe impairment or combination of impairments to demonstrate a qualifying disability. See Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that the regulations place “a very heavy burden” on the claimant to demonstrate a qualifying disability); Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237 (noting that the second step of the analysis requires the ALJ to consider the severity of the claimant’s impairments alone or in combination). Impairments, alone or in combination, are severe if they “‘significantly limit’ the claimant’s ‘physical or mental ability to do basic work skills.’” Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate an adult disability claimant through a five-step sequence: current work, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other available work.

Bracciodieta-Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-04-27

When resolving the issue of whether an adult claimant is or is not disabled, the Commissioner utilizes a five-step sequential evaluation. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 (1995). This process requires the Commissioner to consider, in sequence, whether a claimant (1) is working, (2) has a severe impairment, (3) has an impairment that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment, (4) can return to his or her past relevant work, and (5) if not, whether he or she can perform other work.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability through a five-step sequential inquiry, stopping when a step resolves the claim.

Hardwick v. Astrue · filed 2011-05-04(a)

In evaluating whether a claimant suffers from a disability, an ALJ must apply a five-step sequential inquiry addressing both components of the definition, until a question is answered affirmatively or negatively in such a way that an ultimate determination can be made. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f), 416.920(a)-(f).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to use a five-step process to evaluate a disability claim.

Evans v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-28(a)(4)

Regulations issued pursuant to the Social Security Act set forth a five-step process that the Commissioner must use in evaluating a disability claim.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation, requiring a severe impairment at step two and an assessment of residual functional capacity under subsection (e) when the impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment.

DeJESUS v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-07(c), (e)

The Commissioner’s regulations set forth a five-step sequence to be used in evaluating disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; ... Based on the medical evidence, ALJ Berg determined that DeJesus’ left shoulder, back and chest pain were severe impairments within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... The new § 404.1520(e) explains that if the claimant has an impairment that does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the SSA will assess the claimant's residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The SSA uses the residual functional capacity assessment at step four to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and, if necessary, at step five to determine whether the claimant can do any work.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled.

Jones v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-21

The Commissioner is required to follow a five-step sequential evaluation process in assessing whether a claimant is disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps, including current work activity, impairment severity, the listings, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Chiaradio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-04-26

In determining whether an applicant is disabled within the meaning of the Act, and therefore eligible for benefits, the Commissioner applies a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ must review: (1) the claimant‟s current work activity; (2) the severity of the claimant‟s impairments; (3) whether the claimant‟s impairments meet or equal the requirements of an impairment listed in the regulations; (4) whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to return to past relevant work; and (5) if claimant cannot return to past relevant work, whether she can “make an adjustment to other work” in the national economy. Id.

At Step Three, an impairment that meets or medically equals a listed impairment establishes disability, so no further sequential analysis is necessary.

Reynolds v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-04-01(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ’s error was not harmless, for the regulations indicate that if a person is found to meet a Listed Impairment, they are disabled within the meaning of the regulations and are entitled to benefits; no more analysis is necessary.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) uses a five-step process to evaluate an application for Social Security disability benefits.

Moss v. SSA · filed 2011-04-21(a)(4)

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

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

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

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

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

Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-05-11(c)

We conclude that the ALJ did not apply an incorrect legal standard with regard to Step Two. The ALJ simply used the language of the regulations in stating that Gray’s impairments did not “significantly limit” her ability to perform basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(c) (stating that, if the applicant does not have an impairment that “significantly limits [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” no severe impairment will be found); § 404.1521(a) (“An impairment . . . is not severe if it does not significantly limit [an applicant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”).

Section 404.1520 uses a sequential disability analysis in which severity is decided at step two and listed-impairment equivalence at step three; an ALJ need not assess whether a mental impairment equals a listing unless the impairment is severe.

Alesia v. Astrue · filed 2011-05-24(a)(4)(ii), (c), (d)

At step two of the disability analysis, an ALJ must determine which of a claimant’s impairments are medically severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is one that significantly limits the claimant’s mental or physical ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... At step three of the disability analysis, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... Here, the ALJ need not consider whether Claimant medically equals a listed mental disorder unless he concludes at step two that she has a severe mental impairment. ... Unless the ALJ concludes on remand that Claimant has a severe mental impairment, he need not reconsider his step-three finding.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to proceed through a five-step evaluation, placing the burden on the claimant through the first four steps and on the Commissioner at step five to show the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.

Morin v. SSA · filed 2011-06-06(a)(4)

A five-step process is used to evaluate an application for social security benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... At the fifth step, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that a claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform other work that may exist in the national economy. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v); Heggarty v . Sullivan, 947 F.2d 9 9 0 , 995 (1st Cir. 1991). The ALJ’s conclusions at steps four and five are informed by his assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is a description of the kind of work that the claimant is able to perform despite her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 404.1545.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential process involving substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, residual functional capacity and past work, and other work in the national economy.

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

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

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

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

A "severe impairment is defined as one which 'significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.'" Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)). ... We agree with the district court that the record supports the ALJ's conclusion that Martise's migraine headaches were not a severe impairment.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether an impairment is severe at step two before deciding at step three whether it meets or medically equals a listed impairment; absent a severe mental impairment, the ALJ need not reconsider equivalence to a mental listing.

Alesia v. Astrue · filed 2011-05-24(a)(4)(ii), (c), (d)

At step two of the disability analysis, an ALJ must determine which of a claimant’s impairments are medically severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is one that significantly limits the claimant’s mental or physical ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... At step three of the disability analysis, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... Here, the ALJ need not consider whether Claimant medically equals a listed mental disorder unless he concludes at step two that she has a severe mental impairment. ... Unless the ALJ concludes on remand that Claimant has a severe mental impairment, he need not reconsider his step-three finding.

At step five, § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires finding a claimant disabled when the claimant cannot adjust to other work.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-07-08(a)(4)(v)

That being the case, claimant is entitled to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) (“If you cannot make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are disabled.”). We remand to the Commissioner with instructions that benefits be awarded.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the ALJ to evaluate disability in five ordered steps: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-21(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). 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(a)(4) provides a five-step disability evaluation, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner at step five; if disability can be decided at any step, the inquiry ends.

Lonnie Garner v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-21(a)(4)

The Commissioner uses a five-step process to evaluate a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (2010). The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). If a decision regarding disability can be made at any step of the process, however, the inquiry ceases. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires disability determinations to proceed through a sequential five-step analysis, including consideration of gainful employment, severity, listed impairments, past work, and other work in the national economy.

Matos v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-07(g)

Disability determinations follow a “sequential step analysis” mandated by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The analysis requires that the ALJ first determine whether or not a claimant was gainfully employed pri- or to the onset of the disabling condition. At the second step, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant suffers from a severe impairment limiting his ability to work. If the impairment is the same as, or equal in its effect to, an impairment (or combination of impairments) listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations, the claimant is presumptively deemed disabled. If the impairment is not covered by Appendix 1, the fourth step of the analysis requires that the claimant prove that his disability is sufficiently serious to preclude a return to his former occupation. If he meets that burden, the Commissioner at the fifth step is obligated to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant is able to perform.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, with step four requiring assessment of residual functional capacity and whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Hernandez vs Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-07-11(f); (a)(4)

The social security regulations establish a five-step, sequential evaluation process to determine disability for both SSI and disability benefits claims. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC and a claimant’s ability to do past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). ... The claimant bears the burden of showing that he cannot perform his past work as he actually performed it and as it is generally performed in the national economy. See Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 82-61, available at 1982 WL 31387; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) provides that a claimant is disabled when the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

McClellan v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-07(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step in the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments.

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

Lawrence v. SSA · filed 2011-06-17(c)

In order for an impairment to be considered "severe" it must "significantly limit[] [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Basic work activities include such tasks as "understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions" or "responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations." See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b). ... While Lawrence was diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder-NOS in February of 2003 and June of 2004, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision that this ailment did not significantly limit his ability to perform basic work activities following his alleged onset date of July 7, 2006.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step two to determine the severity of a claimant’s impairments; when the ALJ finds several severe impairments and proceeds through the sequential process, failure to classify each additional impairment as severe is harmless.

Jones-Reid v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-14(a)(4)(ii), (c)

A step two determination requires the ALJ to determine the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c). ... Nonetheless, because the ALJ did find several severe impairments and proceeded in the sequential process, all impairments, whether severe or not, were considered as part of the remaining steps. This result fits within the Second Circuit’s description of step two as a screen for claimants with less than de minimis impairments. Accordingly, the ALJ’s failure to make determinations on whether each and every one of Plaintiffs claimed impairments was severe is harmless error, and would not support a reversal of the Commissioner’s decision.

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

Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-18(a)(3)

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

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits basic work activities; at the residual-functional-capacity stage, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe ones.

Tate v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-07(c), (e)

At step two, an ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe “if it does not significantly limit [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522(a), 416.922(a). In other words, a severe impairment is an impairment or combination thereof that significantly limits a claimant’s abilities to perform basic work activities. See SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, *4 n.1; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1522(a), 416.920(c), 416.922(a). ... An ALJ will “assess and make a finding about [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence” in the action. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a)(1), (3). So, the ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2); Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1268 (11th Cir. 2019).

At step two, § 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment, and finding any severe impairment satisfies that step.

Goode v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-08-15(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the statutory analysis, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment. ... The finding of any severe impairment satisfies this requirement. ... In this case, the ALJ found, at step two, that Goode has three severe impairments: (1) ischemic heart disease; (2) congestive heart failure; and (3) obesity. (Tr. at 18). Accordingly, the ALJ satisfied step two of the statutory analysis—notwithstanding the fact that, in doing so, the ALJ found that Goode’s lumbar degenerative disc disease is not also a severe impairment.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to assess impairment severity at step two, considering impairments alone or in combination, and an erroneous non-severe finding is harmless if the evaluation continues after any severe impairment is found.

Kelley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-16(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). The ALJ must determine whether the impairments, alone or in combination, significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work skills. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)). If an ALJ errs in finding that an impairment is non-severe at step two, such error is harmless if the ALJ finds that the claimant has any severe impairment and continues in the sequential evaluation process.

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

Valdez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-16(a)(3)

“The regulations require the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when he makes a determination or decision whether claimant is disabled.” ... “The Court’s review of ALJ Lindsay’s decision reveals that she referenced and discussed the mixed objective findings in the record extensively.” ... “The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered Dr. Spies’ opinion, assigned it the weight she felt it warranted, discounted it due to other evidence in the record, and satisfactorily explained her reasoning.”

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including consideration at step four of the claimant's residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work.

Francis v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-16(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, an ALJ is to consider the claimant’s RFC and assess his ability to return to his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to evaluate disability claims through five sequential steps, including whether the claimant has a severe impairment and whether the claimant can perform past or other work considering residual functional capacity.

Nazario v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-17(a)

In making this determination at the administrative level, the ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a). Under this process, the ALJ must sequentially determine: (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 is able to do his or her past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is able to do any other work, considering his or her age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) asks whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination; failing to label an additional impairment severe is not reversible error if its limitations are considered in the RFC.

Tucker v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-08-17(c)

As the Commissioner argues and as the court cites above, an ALJ does not err if he finds Plaintiff has one or more severe impairments within the meaning of the regulations at step two of his evaluation but fails to find another impairment or impairments severe so long as he considers limitations resulting from all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments when he assesses RFC. Hill, 289 F. App’x. at 291-92; Brescia, 287 F. App’x at 628-29. The question at step two is whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments which is severe within the meaning of the Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Thus, the real question for the court is whether the ALJ properly considered the limitations resulting from Plaintiff’s gastrointestinal impairments when assessing RFC.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires a medically determinable condition to significantly limit basic work activities and be expected to last at least twelve months to qualify as severe.

Vuletich v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-17(c)

To show that he has a severe impairment, a plaintiff must show that he suffers from a medically determinable condition that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities and that the condition is expected to persist for at least twelve months. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508; 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires a step-two determination of whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment, after which the sequential evaluation continues if at least one severe impairment is found.

De Hernandez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-18(c)

An ALJ’s analysis of whether a claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment at step two is “merely a threshold determination to screen out weak claims.” Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1048 (9th Cir. 2017). A reviewing court must determine whether the ALJ’s conclusion that a claimant’s alleged impairment is not medically severe was based on substantial evidence. Most step two errors are harmless so long as (1) the ALJ found at least one severe medically determinable impairment; (2) the sequential process proceeded to step three; and (3) the ALJ included limitations due to all medically determinable impairments, both severe and non-severe, in formulating the RFC. Buck, 869 F.3d at 1049. ... Accordingly, the ALJ erred by failing to find Plaintiff’s migraines a severe impairment at step two. The error was harmful because the ALJ also failed to include any limitations related to Plaintiff’s migraines in the RFC.

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

Girao v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-18(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ is required to “consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's medically determinable impairments, alone or in combination, meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

PETERSEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-08-18(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or equals the severity of one of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments.

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's alleged disability meets or is medically equivalent to a listed impairment.

Odom v. Saul · filed 2023-08-21(a)(4)(iii)

Step three of the sequential analysis requires an ALJ to determine whether a claimant’s alleged disability meets or is medically equivalent to an impairment in the Listings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

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

Beard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-19(c)

To show a “severe” impairment, a claimant must show “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see id. §§ 404.1521(b), 416.921(b) (defining the ability to perform basic work activities as “the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs,” examples of which including walking, standing, sitting, and responding appropriately to usual work situations). “[A]n impairment can be considered as not severe only if it is a slight abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience.” Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 920 (11th Cir. 1984); see McDaniel, 800 F.2d at 1031 (describing the claimant’s burden to show a severe impairment as “mild”). If any impairment or combination of impairments . . . qualifies as “severe,” step two is satisfied and the claim advances to step three. Jamison, 814 F.2d at 588.

At step two, § 404.1520 treats an impairment as non-severe when it does not significantly limit basic work activities, and an omission is harmless when the ALJ considers the impairment’s effects later in the evaluation.

Lee v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-20(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, the ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If a claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits her ability to do basic work activities, such impairment or impairments are not severe and the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Step two of the evaluation states that a claimant is not disabled if his impairments are not ‘severe.’”). ... Moreover, “[n]umerous district courts in the District of Minnesota, and other districts in the Eighth Circuit, have held that an ALJ’s failure to consider an impairment at step two is harmless error if the ALJ considered the effects of the impairment at step two or at a later step of the evaluation process.” ... Here, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s foot pain and her allegations that her impairments limited her abilities to stand and walk when determining her residual functional capacity. ... “Accordingly, any error resulting from the fact that the ALJ did not find [plantar fasciitis] to be a severe impairment was harmless error that does not warrant remand.”

Section 404.1520(c) requires the Commissioner to determine at step two whether a claimant has a severe impairment.

Elfrink v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-20(c)

At Step 2, the Commissioner must determine whether a claimant has a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits basic work activities; a diagnosis or treatment alone is insufficient without evidence of its current impact.

Diaz v. Saul · filed 2022-09-20(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” within the meaning of the regulations if it significantly limits an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. See, e.g., Bonilla Mojica v. Berryhill, 397 F. Supp. 3d 513, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing SSR 96-3p, 1996 WL 374181, at *1 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)). ... Breast cancer is plainly a serious condition, but pointing to breast cancer and any related procedures alone is insufficient to establish it as a “severe impairment” without evidence of its current impact on Diaz’s life.

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

Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20(c)

The Commissioner then determines whether the impairment or combination of impairments is severe; in other words, is one that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two of the disability evaluation, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's medical impairment is severe.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-18(a)(4)(ii)

Brown’s argument is directed at step two of the evaluation process. (Doc. 23 at 12.) There, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s medical impairment is severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

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

Sidor, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-19(c)

An impairment, or combination of impairments, is severe if it “significantly limits” the claimant’s physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities. ... Here, Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his obesity, back condition, and heart condition – either singly or in combination – significantly interfered with his ability to perform basic work activities. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err by declining to incorporate limitations to accommodate these conditions into his RFC determination.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to consider impairments found non-severe at step two when determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Hawk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-01

Regardless, even if the Court found the ALJ erred, errors at Step 2 of the sequential analysis will not necessarily require reversal, if the ALJ finds at least one “severe” impairment and therefore continues with the remaining steps in the sequential process. That is because in determining a plaintiff's residual functional capacity and ability to work later in the sequential process, the ALJ must consider even the impairments found not to be “severe” at Step 2. See Maziarz v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240, 244 (6th Cir. 1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Thus, regulations require an ALJ to “consider the limiting effects of all [the claimant’s] impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity. Pain or other symptoms may cause a limitation of function beyond that which can be determined on the basis of the anatomical, physiological or psychological abnormalities considered alone....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the disability determination to stop once a claimant is found disabled or not disabled at a step, and subsection (a)(4)(iii) provides for a finding of disability without further assessment when a Listing is met or equaled for at least one year.

Varner v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-01(a)(4), (a)(4)(iii)

These considerations are sometimes referred to as the “five steps” of the Commissioner’s disability analysis. If a decision regarding disability may be made at any step, no further inquiry is necessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (providing that if Commissioner can find claimant disabled or not disabled at a step, Commissioner makes determination and does not go on to the next step). ... If the medical evidence shows a claimant meets or equals all criteria of any of the Listed impairments for at least one year, he will be found disabled without further assessment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520's sequential evaluation ends at step four when a claimant can perform past relevant work, so the ALJ need not proceed to step five or use the Grids.

Jarvis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-02(a)(4)(iv), (f)

The ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff was able to perform her past relevant work was dispositive, and the ALJ was not required to proceed to step five to consider if there were other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform (Tr. 27-28). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv),(f), 404.1560(b)(3). Consequently, Plaintiff’s arguments that she should have been found disabled at step five of the sequential evaluation under the Grids are without merit. Because the ALJ’s decision did not reach step five, the ALJ was not required to rely on the Grids, which are inapplicable to her case. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b); see also Fetters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 160 F. App’x 462, 463 (6th Cir. 2005) (“Use of the Grids is not required at step four of the five-step sequential process prescribed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 for evaluating disabilities.”) (citation omitted).

At step two, the claimant bears the burden of establishing that an impairment is medically determinable.

Walden v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-02-01(a)(4)(ii)

Plaintiff has the burden of establishing the existence of a medically determinable impairment at step two. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); 404.1512(a)(1); see also Ealy, 594 F.3d at 512-13.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant at step two to show that medically determinable impairments significantly limit the ability to perform basic work activities.

Creighton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-01(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). To establish a severe impairment at step two, the condition “must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. Therefore, a physical or mental impairment must be established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1521.

At step two, § 404.1520 treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

(SS) Carrillo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-02

A “severe” impairment or combination of impairments is one that significantly limits physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether an impairment is severe at step two and to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, in assessing residual functional capacity.

Absher v. Saul · filed 2021-02-01(c), (e)

The ALJ’s determination at step two of the sequential evaluation process as to whether an impairment is severe is a threshold determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... However, the ALJ is required to consider the limiting effects of all of the Plaintiff's impairments, including those that are nonsevere, in assessing the Plaintiff’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a)(2); SSR 96-8p (“In assessing RFC, the adjudicator must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual's impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’”).

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant to satisfy the five-step sequential disability evaluation, including showing an inability to perform other work, before being found disabled.

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-26(b)-(f)

Only if a claimant satisfies each element of the analysis, including inability to do other work, and meets the duration requirements, is she determined to be disabled.

At step two, an impairment is severe when it significantly limits the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities; an impairment may be found not severe only when it is a slight abnormality with no more than a minimal effect on the ability to work.

Magar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-26(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). “Basic work activities” refers to “the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522(b), 416.922(b). “An impairment or combination of impairments can be found ‘not severe’ only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has ‘no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.’” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Social Security Ruling (SSR) 85-28). ... However, in considering Dr. Obih’s opinions, the ALJ failed to adequately consider the impact of those findings on Plaintiff’s ability to work. While the ALJ acknowledged Dr. Obih’s exam findings of Plaintiff (AR 19), the ALJ stopped short of the required step two analysis, failing to consider if the medically determinable impairments were no more than slight abnormalities with no more than a minimal effect on Plaintiff’s ability to work.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ at Step Two to determine whether the claimant’s impairment is severe or not severe.

Kang v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-26(c)

Step-two of the administration’s evaluation process requires the ALJ to determine whether an impairment is severe or not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether any of the claimant’s impairments should be considered severe.

Brock v. SSA · filed 2021-01-28(a)(4)(ii)

Step Two requires that the ALJ determine whether any of Plaintiff’s impairments should be considered severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, the regulation requires a claimant to have a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that meets the duration requirement.

Stewart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-25(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step in the sequential evaluation process a claimant must demonstrate she suffers from a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement . . . or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); Social Security Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *11 (Oct. 25, 2017); Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860, 863 (6th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to have a severe impairment that significantly limits basic work activities; an error in evaluating severity may be harmless when the adjudicator considers all impairments in the later steps.

Oswald v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-25(c)

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. Id. ... Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the ALJ in this case erred by not deeming Plaintiff's headaches severe under step two of the disability review analysis. Any such error resulting from such error is harmless, however, because the ALJ proceeded beyond step two of the disability analysis and considered the effect of all of the Plaintiff's impairments throughout the remaining steps of the analysis.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires the Commissioner to determine whether a claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant's physical ability to perform basic work activities.

Foster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-25(c)

At step two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was a severe impairment. (Tr. 106). In making that finding, the ALJ found that bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome significantly limits Plaintiff's physical ability to perform basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); 416.920(c). However, the ALJ’s RFC finding contains no limitations relating to Plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome. Furthermore, the ALJ included no explanation in the RFC assessment indicating why he omitted any functional limitations relating to Plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome. This was error.

At step two, an impairment is severe when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; emergency treatment is not required.

Braden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-26(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ must determine the severity of the claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... It is illogical to assume that an impairment must require emergency treatment in order to be severe. Rather, a severe impairment is one which significantly limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§416.920(c); 416.921(a). Nowhere in the regulations does it state that an impairment must require emergency treatment in order to significantly limit one’s ability to perform basic work activities. The ALJ erred in finding Ms. Braden’s Sjögren’s syndrome was nonsevere simply because there was no emergency treatment in the record.

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

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-27(c)

At step two, a claimant must make a threshold showing 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).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, and a claimant must satisfy every element of a listed impairment to be found disabled at step three.

Saunders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-27(a)(4)

Social Security Regulations require ALJs to resolve a disability claim through a five-step sequential evaluation of the evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... A plaintiff's impairment must meet every element of a Listing before the Commissioner may conclude that he or she is disabled at step three of the sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Duncan v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 855 (6th Cir. 1986).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially, including a severity determination at step two and a comparison with the listed impairments at step three.

Price v. Saul · filed 2021-01-28(a)(4)(ii), (c), (d)

At Step Two, the ALJ determines the severity of a plaintiff’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii); see also 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... Therefore, if the ALJ considers all impairments at subsequent stages of the analysis, failure to find a particular condition “severe” at Step Two, even if erroneous, constitutes harmless error.

Section 404.1520 places the residual-functional-capacity assessment within the sequential disability evaluation and assigns that determination to the ALJ based on the record.

Healan v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-08-03(e)

The ALJ has full responsibility to determine a claimant’s RFC. Walker v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm., 987 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 2021); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... Here, the ALJ satisfied the function-by-function requirement. ... Because the ALJ satisfied the function-by-function requirement and did not need to request a consultative examination, the RFC determination was based on substantial evidence and the correct legal standard was applied.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine at step three whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and the claimant bears the burden of establishing all the listing’s specific medical criteria.

Rivers v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-02

At step three of the disability analysis, the ALJ must determine if plaintiff suffers from a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that his or her medical condition or conditions meet all of the specific medical criteria of particular listed impairments.

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

Dennis L. · filed 2026-04-29(e)

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

At step three, the Commissioner evaluates whether a claimant’s severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, but a non-severe impairment need not be evaluated against a listing.

Ralston · filed 2026-03-27(a)(4)(ii)–(iii)

“At step three, the ALJ considers whether a claimant’s medically severe impairments are equivalent to a condition listed in the appendix of the relevant disability regulation.” Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii)—(iii).!! Because the ALJ properly found Plaintiff did not have a medically severe visual impairment, she was not required to assess whether it met or equaled a listing.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider whether a claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment at step three, but it does not impose a heightened articulation requirement or require the ALJ to give "good reasons."

Lenart · filed 2026-03-31(a)(3)

The Sixth Circuit has held that in evaluating whether a claimant has met or equaled a particular Listing, an ALJ must “actually evaluate the evidence, compare it to . . . the [relevant] Listing, and give an explained conclusion, in order to facilitate meaningful judicial review.” ... But the Court does not construe this as a heightened articulation requirement because, as the Sixth Circuit has also held, the applicable regulations only require the ALJ to consider whether the Listings are applicable; they do not require the ALJ to provide “good reasons” as in the context of the former treating physician rule. Forrest v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 591 F. App’x 359, 365 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), (a)(4)(iii) and Bowie v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 539 F.3d 395, 400 (6th Cir. 2008), as amended); Bledsoe v. Barnhart, 165 F. App’x 408, 411 (6th Cir. 2006).

Section 404.1520(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process covering substantial gainful activity, severe impairments, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work.

Briggs · filed 2026-04-01(a)

The SSA promulgated a five-step sequential process to determine whether an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). This process requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant (1) is engaging in substantial gainful activity; (2) has a medically determinable severe impairment or a combination of impairments that is severe; (3) has an impairment or combination of impairments listed in or medically equivalent to those listed in Appendix 1; (4) has the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work; and (5) has the residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to perform any other type of work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially and allows the evaluation to stop once the agency finds the claimant disabled or not disabled at a step.

Benya · filed 2026-04-03(a)(4)

Where, as here, the ALJ finds that the claimant is not disabled at any given step, the five-step evaluation ends. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (“If we can find that you are . . . not disabled at a step, we make our determination . . . and we do not go on to the next step.”); Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995) (“If an applicant’s claim fails at any step of the process, the ALJ need not advance to the subsequent steps.”) (citation omitted); James K. v. Bisignano, Civil Action No. DRM-25-245, 2026 WL 662976, at *4 (D. Md. Mar. 9, 2026) (“If the ALJ finds no severe impairments [at step two], the claimant is not disabled, and the analysis does not proceed to the other steps.”).

At step five, the Commissioner considers residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work; the claimant is not disabled if adjustment is possible and disabled if it is not.

Bisignano · filed 2026-04-09(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the Commissioner continues to review the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the claimant’s age, education and work experience to settle on any possible adjustments to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If this is possible, then the Commissioner will rule that the claimant is not disabled. However, if the Commissioner establishes the opposite, then the claimant is deemed as disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... II. The Commissioner Met his Burden at Step Five of the Evaluation. ... Thus, the ALJ did not base the hypothetical on any incorrect assumptions and Plaintiff does not identify an error. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not commit harmful error, and remand is not warranted.

Section 404.1520 establishes five sequential steps for determining whether an adult claimant is disabled, and a dispositive finding at one step ends the inquiry.

Pierce · filed 2026-03-31

The Commissioner employs a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether an adult claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The following five issues are addressed in order: (1) if a claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled; (2) if a claimant does not have a severe impairment, he is not disabled; (3) if the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, he is disabled; (4) if the claimant is capable of returning to work he has done in the past, he is not disabled; (5) if the claimant can do other work that exists in significant numbers in the regional or the national economy, he is not disabled. Id. If at one step, an ALJ makes a dispositive finding, the inquiry ends without proceeding to the next. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 416.920; Skinner v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 902 F.2d 447, 449-50 (6th Cir. 1990).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including an RFC determination at step four.

Brain · filed 2026-03-31(a)(4), (e)

The Social Security Administration uses a five-step framework to determine whether a claimant meets the necessary conditions to receive Social Security benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, and if the claimant fails at any of these steps, consideration of any subsequent step or steps is unnecessary. ... At step four, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520 requires an administrative law judge to use a five-step sequential process to determine whether a claimant is disabled, including evaluating substantial gainful activity, severe impairments, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

ZACCARIA · filed 2026-03-31(a)(4)

When reviewing a claim, the ALJ must utilize a five-step sequential analysis to evaluate whether a claimant has met the requirements for disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment or a combination of impairments that is severe; (3) whether the medical evidence of the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App’x 1; (4) whether the claimant’s impairments prevent him from performing his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is incapable of performing his past relevant work, whether he can perform any other work which exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); see Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24–25 (2003).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence; the ALJ determines residual functional capacity between steps three and four and uses it at steps four and five.

Ponce · filed 2026-03-31(a)(4), (e)

The Commissioner uses a sequential, five-step inquiry to determine whether a claimant is disabled: whether (1) the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, (2) [she] has severe impairment, (3) the impairment meets or equals the severity of a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of the regulations, (4) the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work, and (5) the impairment prevents [her] from doing any other work. ... A final determination of disabled or not disabled at any step terminates the inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... Between steps three and four, the ALJ determines the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). A claimant’s RFC, or ability to engage in substantial gainful activity despite their impairments, is used in steps four and five to determine if the claimant can still perform their past work or other relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability determinations to proceed through a five-step sequential evaluation process.

Foley · filed 2026-03-31(a)(4)

The Commissioner reaches a determination as to whether a claimant is disabled by way of a five-stage process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

Section 404.1520(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and, if not, other work.

Brunner · filed 2026-04-02(a)

In making this determination, the ALJ follows a five-step evaluation. The ALJ must sequentially determine whether the claimant: (1) is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) has a severe impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) is able to do his or her past relevant work; and (5) is able to do any other work, considering his or her age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity (“RFC”).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to decide disability through a five-step sequential evaluation, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner at step five.

Salsburey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-04-27

An ALJ is required to follow a five-step sequential analysis to make a disability determination: 1. Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is not disabled. 2. Does the claimant have a medically determinable impairment, or a combination of impairments, that is “severe”? If not, the claimant is not disabled. 3. Does the claimant’s impairment meet or equal one of the listed impairments and meet the duration requirement? If so, the claimant is disabled. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the next step. 4. What is the claimant’s residual functional capacity and can the claimant perform past relevant work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the next step. 5. Can the claimant do any other work considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see Jordan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 548 F.3d 417, 422 (6th Cir. 2008). Under this sequential analysis, the claimant has the burden of proof at steps one through four. Jordan, 548 F.3d at 423. The burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five “to prove the availability of jobs in the national economy that the claimant is capable of performing.” Id.

Section 404.1520 requires disability determinations to use a five-step sequential evaluation.

Rickman · filed 2026-05-15

A five-step sequential evaluation applies in disability determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to decide disability through a five-step sequential evaluation, including whether the claimant can perform past work and whether significant numbers of other jobs exist that the claimant can perform based on residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Ramos v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-05(a)(4)(i)–(v), (g)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must follow a five-step evaluation process: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) based on a “residual functional capacity” assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. ... At Step Five, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can do “other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy” based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity. Greek, 802 F.3d 373 n.2 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 404.1560(b)).

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

McGlowen · filed 2026-03-27(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the plaintiff has a severe impairment that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); 416.920(c). This step is limited to “screen[ing] out de minimis claims.”

At step two, the disability evaluation determines whether a claimant’s impairment is severe; paragraph B mental-function criteria assess severity or listing-level equivalence, not residual functional capacity.

Free · filed 2026-03-30(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ considers the medical severity of an impairment at step two of the five-step disability evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). Specifically, with respect to mental impairments, the paragraph B criteria is used to determine whether a claimant’s mental impairments are severe or meet a listing during the evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) and 404.1520a(d). But the paragraph B criteria is not an RFC assessment.

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

Gibson · filed 2026-03-31(c)

At Step Two, an ALJ determines whether one or more of a claimant's impairments singly or in combination are severe, meaning that the impairment or combination of impairments "significantly limit[] [their] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires determining whether an impairment or combination significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; an impairment with no more than a minimal effect does not satisfy step two.

Gohn · filed 2026-03-31(a)(4)(ii)

At step two the ALJ must determine “whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.” Page, 484 F.3d at 1043; accord 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1521m 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If an impairment has “no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work, then it does not satisfy the requirement of step two.” Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007). ... Although the Court does not find the ALJ erred in the step two analysis, and finds any alleged error would be harmless, the Court notes that it is advisable on remand that the ALJ perform the assessment of fibromyalgia as outlined in SSR 12-2p for the purpose of clarity.

At step two, an impairment or combination of impairments is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, and impairments must be considered in combination.

Howe · filed 2026-03-31(c)

“As such, the Court cannot say that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s (implicit) determination that Plaintiff’s diarrhea should not be included as a severe impairment. The Court also cannot determine whether the combination of Plaintiff’s impairments “significantly limits [Plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[,]” because the ALJ did not consider all of Plaintiff’s impairments in his analysis.”

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ, after establishing a medically determinable impairment, to decide whether it is severe based on whether it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Bauer · filed 2026-03-31(c)

After a medically determinable impairment is established, the ALJ must determine whether the impairment is “severe;” i.e., one that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether a medically determinable impairment significantly limits basic work activities; without such an impairment, the claimant cannot establish disability.

Fredericks · filed 2026-05-05(c)

Second, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or a combination of impairments that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. Id. § 404.1520(c). Absent such impairment, the claimant may not claim disability. Id. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s step two determination is supported by substantial evidence.

At step five, § 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to show that a claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience permit performance of a significant number of jobs in the national economy.

Shelton · filed 2026-05-05(a)(4)(v) and (g)

At the fifth step, the Commissioner has the burden of demonstrating a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform, given his RFC, age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v) and (g), 404.1566(a), 416.920(a)(4)(v) and (g), 416.966(a); Wyatt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 974 F.2d 680, 684 (6th Cir. 1992); Moon v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1175, 1181 (6th Cir. 1990); Allen v. Califano, 613 F.2d 139, 145 (6th Cir. 1980).