20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at Step Two to determine whether a medically determinable impairment is severe, meaning that it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Gilliam · filed 2026-04-07(a)(4)(ii), (c)

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

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ at step two to consider whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment, or combination of impairments.

Eggleston · filed 2026-04-22(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, an ALJ must consider whether the claimant has a severe, medically determinable physical or mental impairment (or combination of impairments).

Section 404.1520(c) requires a severe impairment to be medically determinable, so a mere possibility of opioid abuse does not satisfy that requirement.

Hedges · filed 2026-04-20(c)

The ALJ mentions “possible opioid abuse” in his decision as a severe impairment. This finding does not meet the legal standard required for a medically determinable impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

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

Kauffman · filed 2026-04-10(a)(3)

Further, it is well established that an ALJ may not ignore or overlook contrary lines of evidence. Fleischer v. Astrue, 774 F. Supp. 2d 875, 880 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (citing Bryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 383 F. App’x 140, 148 (3d Cir. 2010) (“The ALJ has an obligation to ‘consider all evidence before him’ when he ‘mak[es] a residual functional capacity determination,’ and must also ‘mention or refute [...] contradictory, objective medical evidence’ presented to him.”)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (requiring that an ALJ “will consider all evidence in your case record” when making a determination whether a claimant is disabled (emphasis added)).

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires an assessment of whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, that meets the applicable duration requirement.

Hairston · filed 2026-04-27(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ considers whether a claimant has “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that [has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months or result in death], or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 416.909.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the agency, at step two, to determine whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.

Hunter · filed 2026-04-28(a)(4)(ii)

Step Two: Does the claimant have a medically-severe impairment or combination of impairments? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is one that lasted or must be expected to last for at least 12 months and must be proven through objective medical evidence. ... The ALJ did not find Plaintiff’s diagnosis of fibromyalgia to be a severe impairment because it concluded the symptoms or limitations stemming from fibromyalgia did not last or expect to last for a period of twelve months. This finding is not supported by substantial evidence of the record.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine a claimant's residual functional capacity before proceeding to step four of the sequential disability analysis.

Stephens · filed 2026-05-19(a)(4)(iv)

Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires consideration of all evidence when making a disability determination, although the ALJ need not specifically articulate how objective or other medical evidence was considered.

Bisignano · filed 2026-05-21(a)(3)

As noted by the ALJ, all evidence is considered when making a disability determination, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 404.1520b, 416.920, 416.920(b), but unlike medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings, there is no requirement that the ALJ specifically articulate how he considered the objective medical evidence or other medical evidence.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ at step two to identify the claimant's medically determinable impairments and determine whether they are severe.

Hirschy · filed 2026-05-21(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Here, the ALJ did not discuss sleep apnea or sleep issues in her decision and did not assess whether sleep apnea was a medically determinable impairment. AR 685–86. At step two of the disability determination process, the ALJ is required to identify all medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(ii), (c); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996).

At step two, § 404.1520 requires a claimant to show a severe impairment that significantly limits basic work activities; an impairment is non-severe only if it causes no more than a minimal effect.

Goldstein v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-05(a)(4)(ii)

Step two is “a de minimis screening device [used] to dispose of groundless claims.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). A “severe” impairment, or combination of impairments, is defined as one that significantly limits physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. An impairment or combination of impairments should be found to be “non-severe” only when the evidence establishes merely a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

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

(SS) Langston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-05(c)

Although the consultative examiner concluded Plaintiff’s ability to stand/ walk should be limited to six hours daily, primarily by her obesity and deconditioning, nowhere in the evaluation does he indicate Plaintiff’s obesity “significantly limits [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. In fact, regarding workplace environmental activities, the consultative examiner stated he would place no environmental limitations upon her. Because Plaintiff fails to establish an actual argument in support of this contention, this Court finds the ALJ properly excluded Plaintiff’s obesity as a severe impairment and thus did not err at step 2.

At step four, § 404.1520(f) treats a claimant as not disabled if the claimant can perform past relevant work as actually performed or as generally performed.

Dautrich · filed 2026-03-30(f)

The regulations provide that if a claimant can return to his or her PRW as the claimant actually performed it or as it is generally performed, then he or she is not disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires disability to be evaluated through a sequential process, including a step-three determination of whether the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, which results in a finding of disability.

Martinez · filed 2026-03-30(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three, the Commissioner must determine whether a claimant’s impairment or combinations of impairments is sufficiently severe to meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(d); 404.1525; 404.1526. That is, “[i]f the findings related to your impairments are at least of equal medical significance to those of a listed impairment, we will find that your combination of impairments is medically equivalent to that listing”. §404.1526(b)(3). If a claimant is found to meet or medically equal a listed impairment, then he will be found per se disabled. See §404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d). ... Thus, fully crediting Dr. Carr’s testimony regarding plaintiff’s functional limitations, plaintiff could not have met or medically equaled listing 1.15 or 1.18. ALJ Baird’s decision, in this regard, was legally correct.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including assessment of severity and residual functional capacity.

Merrick · filed 2026-03-30(a), (b), (c), (d), (g)

The Commissioner must follow a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). ... Where, as here, the ALJ recognized plaintiff’s medically determinable mental impairment of depression and bipolar disorder and provided an explanation as to why such impairment did not cause more than mild limitations in any of the four areas of mental functioning and would not impact plaintiff’s capacity to work, the ALJ has met his obligation at step four.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, moving through the steps until the claimant is found disabled or not disabled.

Jodie D. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-04-06(a)(4)

The Social Security Administration has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to aid in this determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 861 (4th Cir. 2017). The ALJ proceeds through each step until making a finding of either “disabled” or “not disabled”; if no finding is made, the analysis advances to the next step. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) makes the first step of the disability evaluation whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Ronau · filed 2026-04-27(a)(4)(i)

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

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequence: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, residual functional capacity and past relevant work, and other work considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience.

Nicholson · filed 2026-05-06

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.

Section 404.1520(a) establishes a five-step sequential process for determining disability, including whether the claimant can adjust to other work based on residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Reeves · filed 2026-05-07(a)

The SSA utilizes a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). If the issue of disability can be resolved at any point during the evaluation, the ALJ does not proceed to the next step and the claim is not reviewed further. Id. First, if the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled. Id. Second, if the claimant does not have a severe medically determinable impairment that meets the 12-month durational requirements, he is not disabled. Id. Third, if the claimant suffers from a listed impairment, or its equivalent, for the proper duration, he is presumed disabled. Id. Fourth, if the claimant can perform relevant past work based on his residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is an assessment of “the most you [the claimant] can still do despite your limitations,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), he is not disabled. Id. Fifth, if the claimant can adjust to other work based on his RFC, age, education, and work experience, he is not disabled. Id. The claimant bears the burden of proof through the first four steps, while the burden shifts to the SSA at step five.

The sequential evaluation requires the ALJ to assess impairment severity at step two and determine residual functional capacity at step four using all relevant medical and other evidence, including limitations from nonsevere impairments.

Clay · filed 2026-05-08(a)(4)(ii), (e)

At step two, an ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... At step four, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ failed to consider his venous insufficiency at step four also fails. ... The ALJ was not required to provide any further discussion or explanation regarding her consideration of Plaintiff’s venous insufficiency, especially given Plaintiff’s failure to cite any evidence supporting additional limitations that should have been considered due to this impairment.

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

Hood · filed 2026-04-03(c)

Social Security regulations make it clear that a claimant’s impairment is severe if it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... The failure of the ALJ to find Plaintiff’s incontinence as a severe impairment constitutes legal error.

Section 404.1520 requires disability determinations to proceed through a five-step sequential evaluation: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Venaziano · filed 2026-04-22

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). See also Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010); Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 1990). First, the claimant must demonstrate that they are not currently engaged in “substantial gainful activity” at the time of the disability application. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). Second, the claimant must show that they suffer from a “severe impairment” in order to warrant a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). A “severe impairment” is one that “significantly limits . . . physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Abbot, 905 F.2d at 923. Third, if the claimant is not performing substantial gainful activity, has a severe impairment that is expected to last for at least twelve months, and the impairment, or combination of impairments, meets or medically equals a required listing under 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, the claimant is presumed to be disabled regardless of age, education, or work experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments does not prevent the claimant from doing their past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e)-(f), 416.920(e)-(f). For the fifth and final step, even if the claimant’s impairment does prevent the claimant from doing their past relevant work, if other work exists in the national economy that the claimant can perform, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 404.1560(c), 416.920(g).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps, including a step-three finding of disability when a severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Avila v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-05(a)(4), (d)

The SSA has established a five-step evaluation process for determining whether an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... At Step Three, if a plaintiff demonstrates that one of his or her severe disabilities meets or equals the criteria in a Listing, disability is presumed. ... see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, including whether the claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

MAAROUFI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-05-09(a)

The ALJ applies a well-established “five-step sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is “disabled” as defined in the Social Security Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520(a) requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential evaluation of disability, including the step-(4) determination whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Serrano v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-14(a), (a)(4)

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).

Section 404.1520(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities to qualify as severe at Step Two.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-10(c)

At Step Two, an impairment is deemed severe if the impairment significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. ... Claimant bears the burden of establishing that she has a severe impairment, “which is ‘any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant’s] ability to do basic work,’” Miller v. Berryhill, No. 16CV6467, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153578, at *20 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... The ALJ had substantial evidence to find that this ailment was not a severe impairment at Step Two. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings regarding these nonsevere impairments is denied.

Under § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), a claimant is not disabled when the claimant lacks a severe medically determinable impairment meeting the duration requirement and lacks a severe combination of impairments meeting that requirement.

Broome v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-05-15(a)(4)(ii)

If a claimant does “not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement in § 404.1509, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, [the ALJ] will find that [the claimant is] not disabled.” 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires determining whether a medically determinable impairment significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Shellard v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-16(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). ... Because this finding is based in part on the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s symptom testimony, and because Plaintiff’s symptom testimony must be considered on remand, the ALJ should also reconsider Plaintiff’s ankle impairment at step two.

At Step Two, Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to consider the severity of a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments and whether it meets the Agency’s duration requirements.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-10(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two, the ALJ considers the medical severity of a claimant’s impairment and whether there is a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment – or combination of impairments – that meets Agency duration requirements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) ends the sequential evaluation once the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at a step, and its step-four rule treats ability to perform past relevant work as a finding of not disabled.

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-20(a)(4), (e)

ALJs need not reach step five of the inquiry if they determine that the claimant could perform her past relevant work. If an individual’s claim fails at step four, the Commissioner will conclude that the individual is not disabled and deny the claimant’s benefits request. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) (“If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at a step, we make our determination or decision and we do not go on to the next step.”), 416.920(a)(4)(iv) (“If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.”).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as non-severe when it does not significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

(SS) Siqueiros v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-14(c)

“‘[A]n impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] . . . ability to do basic work activities.’” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) & 404.1521(a)).

Section 404.1520(c) requires the adjudicator to consider limitations from non-severe impairments when formulating the residual functional capacity after finding a severe impairment.

Caramanna v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-15(c)

The ALJ does not necessarily need to incorporate non-severe limitations into the RFC, but the ALJ must consider those limitations in the analysis underlying the formulation of the RFC.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to hear and evaluate all relevant evidence when determining whether an applicant is entitled to disability benefits.

Lynch v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2024-05-17(a)(3)

To assess an applicant’s RFC, the ALJ has a “duty to hear and evaluate all relevant evidence in order to determine whether an applicant is entitled to disability benefits.” Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir. 1981); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(g) provides that a claimant is disabled at step five when the claimant’s impairments, considering residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work, prevent other work existing in the local or national economy.

Michelle C. v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-17(g)

Fifth, if a claimant’s impairments (considering RFC, age, education and past work) prevent doing other work that exists in the local or national economy, a finding of disabled is warranted. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation, requiring the claimant to prove a severe impairment or combination of impairments at step two, meaning impairments that significantly limit the ability to perform basic work skills.

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(c) requires an impairment or combination of impairments to significantly limit physical or mental ability to do basic work activities; slight abnormalities with no more than a minimal work effect do not establish severity.

Gaudreault v. Astru · filed 2012-06-18(c)

Application of the requirement is governed by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c), which provide that an applicant must have an “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” in order to be considered as disabled. “[W]hen medical evidence establishes only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities which would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work even if the individual’s age, education, or work experience were specifically considered,” a finding of severity, and concomitantly, disability, is not warranted.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) permits the sequential disability evaluation to end once the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at a step, without proceeding to later steps.

Cantrall v. Colvin · filed 2013-09-13(a)(4)

The ALJ was not required to proceed to step five in the sequential evaluation of Cantrall’s disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (“If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at a step, we make our determination or decision and we do not go on to the next step.”).

Section 404.1520 treats the step-two severity finding as distinct from the step-four residual functional capacity determination, so a severe impairment at step two does not dictate the outcome at step four.

Ybarra v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-09-29(a)(4)(iv)

A conclusion that an impairment is “severe” for the purposes of step two of the enquiry does not dictate the outcome at step four. ... At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has severe impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). At step four, the ALJ is required to determine the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant’s impairments are severe.

Colbert v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-22(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ evaluates whether the claimant’s impairments are severe at the second step of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, once a claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments and the sequential evaluation continues, failure to classify an additional impairment as severe is harmless.

Vickers v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-11(a)(4)(ii)

Step two requires “a threshold determination of whether a [plaintiff] is suffering from a severe impairment or a combination of impairments.” ... “Ifa [plaintiff] is found to be suffering from a severe impairment(s), the analysis simply proceeds to the next step.” /d. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)Gi), 416.920(a}(4)Gi)). ... When a plaintiff makes a “threshold showing that other disorders constituted severe impairments” and “the ALJ continued with the sequential evaluation process,” an ALJ’s failure to find an additional impairment nonsevere is harmless. ... Because the ALJ found numerous other severe impairments at step two of her analysis, the ALJ’s failure to classify Plaintiff's chronic symptomatic venous insufficiency as a severe impairment is no basis for remand.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims and requires a claimant at step two to show a medically determinable severe impairment.

(SS) Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(a)(4), (c)

To achieve uniform decisions, the Commissioner established a sequential five-step process for evaluating a claimant’s alleged disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The process requires the ALJ to determine whether Plaintiff (1) is engaged substantial gainful activity, (2) had medically determinable severe impairments (3) that met or equaled one of the listed impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether Plaintiff (4) had the residual functional capacity to perform to past relevant work or (5) the ability to perform other work existing in significant numbers at the state and national level. Id. ... The inquiry at step two is a de minimus screening “to dispose of groundless claims.” ... A claimant must make a “threshold showing” (1) she has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments and (2) the impairment or combination of impairments is severe. Id. at 146-47; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Thus, the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish a medically determinable severe impairment that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, or the “abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(a), 416.921(a).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential disability evaluation, including a step-two de minimis screen for impairments that significantly limit basic work activities.

Vargas v. Saul · filed 2020-07-23(a), (c)

In making this determination at the administrative level, the ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(a), 416.920(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), 416.920(a)(4). ... At Step 2 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ determines whether a claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-41 (1987). An impairment is considered severe if it “significantly limits an individual’s physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c). An impairment is severe if it is “something beyond a ‘slight abnormality’ which would have no more than a minimal effect on the Plaintiff’s ability to do basic work activities”. McCrea v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 370 F.3d at 357, 360 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856 (1985)). The Court of Appeals is clear that the step-two inquiry is a de minimis screening device used to cast out meritless claims. McCrea, 370 F.3d at 360; Newell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 347 F.3d 541, 546 (3d Cir. 2003). The burden is on the claimant to show that an impairment qualifies as severe. Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires severe impairments identified at step two to be considered throughout the remaining steps of the sequential evaluation.

Kills Small v. Saul · filed 2020-11-30(a)(4)

The court does not accept the Commissioner’s argument that any error at step two is irrelevant because the ALJ proceeded to the next step. An ALJ’s failure to recognize a severe impairment at step two may affect the remainder of the ALJ’s analysis because the Social Security regulations require the ALJ to consider any severe impairments found at step two throughout the remainder of the five-step evaluation process. See 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 uses a sequential disability evaluation: a claimant must satisfy every element of a listed impairment at step three, and a step-two severe impairment significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Bobb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-28(a)(4), (c)

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). ... Further, at step two of the sequential evaluation, a plaintiff must show that he suffers from a “severe impairment” in order to warrant a finding of disability. ... A “severe impairment” is defined as an impairment or combination of impairments “which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) establishes a five-step sequence for evaluating disability, and subsection (c) requires an impairment to significantly limit basic work activities to be considered severe at step two.

(SS) Sanguras v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(a)(4), (c)

To achieve uniform decisions, the Commissioner established a sequential five-step process for evaluating a claimant’s alleged disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The process requires the ALJ to determine whether Plaintiff (1) is engaged substantial gainful activity, (2) had medically determinable severe impairments (3) that met or equaled one of the listed impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether Plaintiff (4) had the residual functional capacity to perform to past relevant work or (5) the ability to perform other work existing in significant numbers at the state and national level. Id. ... At step two, a claimant must make a “threshold showing” (1) she has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments and (2) the impairment or combination of impairments is severe. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146-47 (1987); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Thus, the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish a medically determinable severe impairment that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, or the “abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(a), 416.921(a). ... For an impairment to be “severe,” it must “significantly limit[]” the claimant’s “ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; an erroneous non-severe finding is not fatal when another impairment is severe and the evaluation continues through later steps while considering the combined effects of all impairments.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2021-03-16(c)

At the outset, the Court notes that if the ALJ erroneously finds an impairment to be non-severe at step two of the sequential evaluation process, the error is not fatal if the ALJ finds at least one of Plaintiff’s other impairments to be severe and continues through the sequential evaluation process and considers the combined effect of all the claimant’s impairments at the later steps.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially and treats an impairment as severe at step two when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Dzelilovic v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-04-08(a)(4), (c)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ conducts a five-step inquiry: (1) whether the claimant is currently unemployed; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals any of the listings found in the regulations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (2004); (4) whether the claimant is unable to perform his former occupation; and (5) whether the claimant is unable to perform any other available work in light of his age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2000). These steps are to be performed sequentially. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... “A severe impairment is an impairment or combination of impairments that ‘significantly limits [one’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.’” Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923, 926 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)). ... The Seventh Circuit has emphasized that “[t]he Step 2 determination is ‘a de minimis screening for groundless claims.” O’Connor-Spinner v. Colvin, 832 F.3d 690, 697 (7th Cir. 2016); Hickman v. Apfel, 187 F.3d 683, 688 (7th Cir. 1999) (“severity is merely a threshold requirement.”)

Section 404.1520(c) makes step two a threshold screening inquiry, and once the claimant has at least one severe impairment, failure to identify additional severe impairments is harmless if the sequential evaluation continues and all impairments are considered.

Boh v. Saul · filed 2021-07-02(c)

“Step two is merely a threshold determination meant to screen out weak claims.” ... Once a claimant prevails at step two, by achieving a finding of some severe impairment, regardless of which condition is found to be severe, the ALJ proceeds with the sequential evaluation, considering at each step all other alleged impairments and symptoms that may impact the claimant’s ability to work. ... Thus, when an ALJ finds at least one severe impairment and proceeds to consider evidence of limitations posed by all of a claimant’s impairments at step four, there is no reversible error for a failure to find additional severe impairments at step two. ... Thus, the determination that Plaintiff’s anxiety, depression, and PTSD were non-severe at step two is inconsequential, and any error by the ALJ at step two would have been harmless.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for determining disability, including a step-two screening for severe medically determinable impairments.

Rayles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-01(a)(4)(ii)

Defendant employs a five-step “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, § 416.920. If the claimant is found to be disabled or not disabled at any particular step thereof, the disability determination is made at that step and the sequential evaluation process ends. See id. ... At step two of the sequential disability evaluation process, “the medical severity” of a claimant’s impairments is considered. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant has no “severe medically determinable” impairment, then he or she will be found not disabled. Id. ... Because the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Weiss’s opinion, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s major depressive disorder was non-severe was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, and to consider all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Pettiford v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-11(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant has a “severe” impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & 416.920(a)(4)(ii). To determine if a claimant has a severe impairment, the ALJ must find that an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do “basic work activities.” See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... Here, the ALJ did not mention Pettiford’s knee impairment at step two, precluding this Court from evaluating the ALJ’s step two finding. That failure was error because there is evidence in the record indicating that Pettiford’s knee impairment, alone or in combination with his other impairments, “significantly limits” his physical ability to do “basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c); Rogers, 486 F.3d at 243, n.2. The ALJ’s step two error is not reversible so long as the ALJ continued through the remaining steps of the evaluation and considered Pettiford’s knee impairment when assessing the RFC. Maziarz, 837 F.2d at 244.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability in steps, including determining at step two whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment that significantly limits basic work abilities.

GRMEK v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-28(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ “consider[s] the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s).” Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). For the inquiry to continue, the ALJ must find that the claimant has at least one “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment,” or “combination of impairments,” id., that has lasted or is “expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.” Id. § 404.1509. Severity is proven if the impairment(s) “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. § 404.1520(c). ... This detailed consideration of the evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a severe and medically determinable impairment prior to his DLI. ... Accordingly, the Court will leave the ALJ’s step-two decision undisturbed.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) makes step two a threshold inquiry: if no severe impairment is found, the claimant is not disabled, but if one is found, the ALJ proceeds to step three.

SIDDIQUI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-29(a)(4)(ii)

The step two decision is a threshold analysis, and once the ALJ finds any one impairment severe, he may move on to consider all impairments, severe or not, at subsequent steps.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to consider the medical severity of a claimant's impairments at Step Two of the five-step sequential evaluation process.

Casto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-31(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two of the five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the Commissioner to determine at Step Two whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments meeting the duration requirement, and an omission is harmless when other severe impairments are found and the omitted impairment is considered later.

Cordeiro v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-22(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment or a combination of impairments that meets the duration requirement in § 404.1509. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Here, although the ALJ did not identify sacroiliitis as a severe impairment at Step Two, it is clear that the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s sacroiliitis at Step Four in assessing Plaintiff’s RFC. ... Because this condition was considered during the subsequent steps, any error was harmless.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential five-step process, including a step-two determination whether the claimant has a severe impairment; having a medically determinable impairment alone does not automatically satisfy that requirement.

Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-08(a)(4)(ii)

The Commissioner must follow a sequential five-step process when determining whether a claimant is disabled for the purpose of the Social Security Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... At step two, the claimant must show that she has a “severe impairment” limiting her ability to do work-related activities. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); see Anselm v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 737 F. App’x 552, 553 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order). ... Thus, the ALJ did not commit legal error by failing to automatically find Plaintiffs impairments were severe after finding that she had medically determinable impairments.

Section 404.1520 directs the ALJ to end the sequential disability analysis when the claimant is found not disabled at a step, including after failing to establish a severe impairment at step two.

Paros v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-01(a)(4)

If a claimant cannot establish that his impairment is severe at step two, the claimant is not disabled, the inquiry ends, and the ALJ is directed by the regulation not to proceed to step three to consider the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) makes step two a severity screen, so an impairment omitted there may still require consideration in the RFC analysis.

Sampedro v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-15(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the five-step process, the ALJ must determine the medical severity of the individual’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). Here, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff had several severe impairments including bilateral shoulder pain, degenerative disc disease, and generalized pain syndrome. ... However, the ALJ did not mention cubital tunnel syndrome or pain in Plaintiff’s hands and fingers. ... Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the RFC analysis.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to use a five-step sequential evaluation, including determining at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment that meets the duration requirement.

Carson v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-14(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines if the claimant has an impairment, or a combination of impairments, that is severe and meets the duration requirement.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires a claimant to show a severe medically determinable impairment meeting the duration requirement, or a severe combination of impairments meeting that requirement.

Garmon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-22(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step in the sequential evaluation process a claimant must demonstrate he suffers from a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement . . . or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement . . .” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(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).

Section 404.1520(g) makes a medical condition relevant to disability only insofar as its functional limitations prevent past work or other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Ostrowski v. Astrue · filed 2012-10-25(g)

The condition of degenerative disk disease is not, alone, relevant to a claimant’s ability to work. Rather, a condition’s relevance for purposes of determining disability under the Act lies in any functional limitations the condition imposes upon a claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 (2012) (providing that impairments must be so functionally limiting as to preclude either past work or any other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy).

At Step Five, § 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to determine whether significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

McIntyre v. Colvin · filed 2014-07-07(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five, the Commissioner must determine that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

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

Rumzis v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-23(g)

If the ALJ finds that a claimant cannot perform her past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant can perform other work that exists in the national economy. ... The court finds that the ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert was properly phrased, and thus the vocational expert’s testimony in response constitutes substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding at step five.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that a claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity.

DUVA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-06-27(a)(4)(v), (g)

At Step Five, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant can perform work which exists in the national economy, in light of his age, education, work experience, and RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... Where, however, the claimant has nonexertional limitations, the grids provide only a framework, and the ALJ must consider additional evidence to determine whether there are jobs in the national economy that someone with the claimant's combination of impairments could perform.

At step five, the disability determination must resolve whether jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Kinhart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-07(g)

The record also does not contain evidence establishing whether there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform if Mr. Johnsen’s opinions were properly accounted for. ... That issue, at a minimum, needs to be resolved by the ALJ before Plaintiff can be found disabled under the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g); see also Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-99.

At step five, the regulation requires determining whether a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Streich v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-05(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five, the ALJ must determine whether a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy which the plaintiff can perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(g) shifts the burden to the Commissioner at step five to show that, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, the claimant can perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy; benefits are denied if that showing is made and awarded if it is not.

DIXON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-02-20(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, § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires consideration of the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to decide whether the claimant can adjust to other work; when nonexertional limitations make the Grids nonconclusive, vocational-expert evidence may establish available jobs.

Spence v. Saul · filed 2020-03-02(a)(4)(v)

The fifth and final step requires the ALJ to consider the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience in order to determine whether she can make an adjustment to other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). At this point, “the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant can perform other work that ‘exists in significant numbers in the national economy.’” Lewis, 858 F.3d at 862 (quoting Mascio, 780 F.3d at 635). “The Commissioner typically offers this evidence through the testimony of a vocational expert responding to a hypothetical that incorporates the claimant’s limitations.” Id. (quoting Mascio, 780 F.3d at 635). If the claimant can perform other work, the ALJ will find her “not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If she cannot perform other work, the ALJ will find her “disabled.” Id. ... The Commissioner should also rely on VE testimony at step five where, as here, the ALJ finds that an individual has the RFC to perform less than the full range of light work. See Gibson v. Astrue, No. 3:10-cv-226, 2010 WL 4789659, at *4–*5 (E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 2010), adopted by 2010 WL 4788211 (E.D. Va. Nov. 16, 2010). The ALJ did so here, concluding not only that Claimant could perform his past relevant work as it was actually performed but also that other work at the light and sedentary levels of exertion was available. (Tr. at 683–85.) This was not error.

At the fifth step, § 404.1520(f) requires the Commissioner to consider the claimant's qualifications and determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-27(f)

The final step is divided into two parts. First, the Commissioner must assess the claimant's job qualifications by considering her physical ability, age, education, and work experience. Second, the Commissioner must determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that a person having the claimant's qualifications could perform. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); see also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460 (1983).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires the Commissioner at step five to determine whether significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Rosario v. Saul · filed 2020-05-13(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five, the Commissioner must determine that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform, using the Medical Vocational Guidelines or vocational-expert testimony.

Travo v. Saul · filed 2020-07-10(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five, the ALJ must determine whether a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy which the plaintiff can perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). “An ALJ may make this determination either by applying the Medical Vocational Guidelines or by adducing testimony of a vocational expert.” McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146, 151 (2d Cir. 2014).

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Gaskin v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-13(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five, the Commissioner must determine that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Keovilay v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-15(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five, the Commissioner must determine whether significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Melendez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-10(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five, the Commissioner must determine that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

At step five of the sequential evaluation, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that a claimant, given her background and residual functional capacity, can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Sawney v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-22(g)

At step five, the Commissioner has the burden to show that, given a claimant’s background and RFC, the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g).

At step five, if a claimant cannot return to past relevant work, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Brittingham v. Saul · filed 2020-09-30(a)(4)(v)

If the Commissioner determines the claimant cannot return to past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show the claimant retains the RFC to perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Id., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

At step five, when a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy by considering age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity; when the Medical-Vocational Guidelines fit the claimant's characteristics and non-exertional impairments do not significantly affect capacity, the ALJ may rely exclusively on the Guidelines.

De Ornelas v. Saul · filed 2020-12-22(f)

After the ALJ found that Ornelas was “unable to perform any past relevant work” (R. 25), the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) regulations require the ALJ to determine whether Ornelas could perform any other work available in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). “In making this determination, an ALJ has to consider the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, as well as [her] residual functional capacity.” Fraga v. Bowen, 810 F. 2d 1296, 1304 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1561). Further, “[w]hen the characteristics of the claimant correspond to criteria in the Medical-Vocational Guidelines of the regulations . . . , and the claimant suffers only from exertional impairments or [her] non-exertional impairments do not significantly affect [her] residual functional capacity, the ALJ may rely exclusively on the Guidelines in determining whether there is other work available that the claimant can perform.” Id.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that a claimant with the assessed RFC and vocational characteristics can perform.

Enoch v. Saul · filed 2021-01-14(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the Commissioner must prove that other work exists in “significant numbers” in the national economy which could be done by an individual with the same RFC, age, education, and work experience as the claimant.

At step five, the regulation requires evaluating whether a claimant’s residual functional capacity, combined with age, education, and work experience, permits performance of other work available in the national economy.

Ramos-Munoz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ evaluates whether a claimant’s RFC, combined with his age, education, and work experience, allows him to perform any other work that is available in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... The ALJ was entitled to rely on the opinion of the VE at step five of the sequential process and her determination that there was work in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform is supported by substantial evidence. See Berríos-López, 951 F.2d at 429.

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

Farmwald v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-19(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ has the burden of demonstrating that a significant number of jobs in the national economy exist 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 v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 548 F.3d 417, 423 (6th Cir. 2008).

Section 404.1520(g) requires the ALJ to determine, based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational profile, whether the claimant can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy; the Commissioner bears the burden at step five.

BENNETTE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-08-17(g)

At step five, an ALJ must decide whether the claimant, considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, can perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). Unlike in the first four steps of the sequential evaluation, the Commissioner bears the burden of proof at step five. ... For the reasons discussed earlier in this decision, this hypothetical sufficiently captured Plaintiff’s credibly established limitations and therefore supported the ALJ’s determination at step five. ... In short, the Court finds that the Acting Commissioner has carried her burden at step five of the sequential evaluation.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that a claimant unable to perform past relevant work can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Weakland v. Saul · filed 2021-06-04(a)(4)(v)

In the fifth and final step, if it has been established that a claimant can no longer perform past relevant work because of his impairments, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant retains the ability to do alternate work and to demonstrate that such alternate work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); see also Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1011 (9th Cir. 2014). ... Based on the holding in Gutierrez, the Court agrees with the Commissioner that, at most, the ALJ committed harmless error by failing to clarify whether the jobs the VE identified required math skills. ... Thus, any conflict is not “obvious” and the ALJ therefore did not err in failing to reconcile the alleged conflict at the hearing.

At step five, § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires determining whether significant numbers of other jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Horne v. SSA · filed 2022-04-26(a)(4)(v)

At the fifth step in the sequential evaluation process, ALJs must determine if jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform. ... ALJs may rely on evidence from a vocational expert at this stage, to address complex issues specific to the claimant’s ability to work. ... This provided Judge Hodges substantial evidence to find that Horne could perform work in the national economy and was, therefore, not disabled under § 404.1505. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Judge Hodges’s rational and supported determination, therefore, must stand.

At step five, the regulation places the burden on the SSA to show that a claimant can perform other jobs in the national economy.

Henry v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-05-17(g)

As recognized above, at Step Five of the Analysis, the SSA has the burden of demonstrating the claimant is able to perform “other jobs in the national economy.” ... Here, to meet that burden, the ALJ relied upon the testimony of the VE. ... Based upon this record and the VE’s failure to respond to these questions, the Court cannot find this is “reliable job information” such that the ALJ has met her burden under Step Five. As such, this case should be reversed and remanded.

At step five, a claimant may be found not disabled if the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Wareing v. Commisioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-08(g)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ need only establish that a claimant can perform “other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). This burden is met if the ALJ establishes that there is at least one job existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(b).

At step five, § 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to establish that a claimant can perform a significant number of other jobs in the national economy.

Watson v. Saul · filed 2023-02-08(a), (g)

At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish that, given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, there are a significant number of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1520(a), (g); 404.1560 (c); Brock v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1062, 1064 (8th Cir. 2012).

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy; 10,000 remaining table-worker jobs were insufficient here.

Charder v. Saul · filed 2023-03-17(g)(1)

At step five, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant can perform other work. Id. § 404.1520(g)(1). If the Commissioner meets this burden and proves that the claimant is able to perform other work that exists in the national economy, benefits are denied. Id. § 404.1520(g)(1). ... In this case, after discounting the document preparer and production worker occupations, the remaining 10,000 table worker jobs available in the national economy is not a sufficient number to support the ALJ’s Step 5 determination.

At step five under § 404.1520, an ALJ’s finding that a claimant can perform other work in the national economy cannot stand when it ignores an unresolved conflict between the claimant’s interaction limitation and vocational-expert testimony about job training requirements.

Loy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-10(a)(4)(v)

The Social Security regulations outline a five-step process that the ALJ must use in determining whether a claimant is entitled to supplemental-security income or disability-insurance benefits: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) if so, whether that impairment, or combination of impairments, meets or equals any of the listings in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) if not, whether the claimant can perform her past relevant work in light of her residual functional capacity (“RFC”); and (5) if not, whether, based on the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, she can perform other work found in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v); Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 642–43 (6th Cir. 2006). ... The ALJ’s step five determination cannot stand because it ignores the obvious contradiction between Claimant’s limitation to only occasional interaction with others and the vocational expert’s testimony that the identified jobs would require up to a thirty-day training period during which more than occasional interaction with supervisors would likely occur.

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether a claimant who cannot perform past work can perform other work in the national economy, accounting for exertional and non-exertional limitations.

Spivey v. Apfel · filed 2001-03-02(f)

Fifth, if a claimant’s impairments (considering her residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work) prevent her from doing other work that exists in the national economy, then she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... The Commissioner also shall obtain the opinion of a vocational expert as to Spi-vey’s ability to perform the “full range” of sedentary work in light of her exertional and non-exertional limitations.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ at step five to determine whether a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Connell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-02(a)(4)(v), (g)

If the claimant cannot perform his past relevant work, the ALJ must determine at step five whether the claimant’s RFC permits him to perform other work that exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g), 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g).

If a claimant can perform past relevant work at step four, the evaluation ends and the step-five Grid Rules do not apply.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-26(f)

Accordingly, the Grid Rules are inapplicable in this case because the ALJ did not reach Step 5, finding instead that the plaintiff was able to return to her past relevant work, which leads to the plaintiff’s next issue.

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of proving that other jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Wines v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-07(a)(4)(v)

To make a disability determination, an ALJ must engage in a five-step sequential analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... A claimant bears the burden at the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five, where she must prove that other jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform, considering her RFC, age, education, and work experience. ... Here, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that, based on Wines’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, jobs existed in the national economy in significant numbers that she could perform. Accordingly, we conclude that Commissioner met her burden in step five of the required analysis.

At step five, § 404.1520(g) provides that a claimant is not disabled if other work exists in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Stephenson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-03(g)

The Court finds that the ALJ was justified in relying on the vocational expert’s testimony and determining that the Plaintiff has not been under disability, as defined in the Social Security Act. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g) (if other work exists in the national economy that the claimant can perform, the claimant is not disabled).

Section 404.1520(e) requires determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity, meaning the ability to perform work activities despite all impairments, including those not deemed severe.

Sanchez v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-28(e)

First, the claimant’s residual functional capacity is determined. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The residual functional capacity is the claimant’s ability to perform work activities despite his impairments, including impairments that were not deemed severe.

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

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-09-22(a)(4)

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

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

Kent v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-09-29(a)(4)

Administrative regulations require a fívé-step sequential evaluation for disability- ' determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

At the first step of disability evaluation, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Puente v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-09-18(a)(4)(i)

First, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in any “substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i).

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential evaluation of disability claims, moving through the impairment and work-capacity steps to determine whether the claimant can perform past work.

Loeb v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-16

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

Section 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant's impairment prevents past relevant work by reviewing the claimant's RFC and the physical and mental demands of the claimant's past work.

Frank v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-08(f)

Fourth, the impairment must prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(f), 404.1520(f). ... The ALJ will review a. claimant’s RFC and the physical and mental demands of the work the claimant has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At step three, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to consider whether the combined effect of all of a claimant’s physical and mental impairments meets or functionally equals a listed impairment.

Warfield v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-22(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must consider whether the combined effect of all a claimant’s impairments, both physical and mental, “meets” or “functionally equals” a Listed Impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1523.

At step four, the ALJ evaluates whether the claimant can return to past relevant work using the RFC and the work's physical and mental demands; if not, step five shifts the burden to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy.

Walker v. Colvin · filed 2015-08-19(e), (f)

At step four, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can return to his past relevant work, “reviewing] [the claimant’s] [RFC] and the physical and mental demands of the work [claimant has] done in the past.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The burden at step four remains with the claimant to prove his RFC and establish that he cannot return to his past relevant work. ... If the ALJ holds at step four of the process that a claimant cannot return to past relevant work, the burden shifts at step five to the Commissioner to establish that the claimant maintains the RFC to perform a significant number of jobs within the national economy. ... If the' claimant is prevented by his impairment from doing any ether-work, the ALJ will find the claimant to be'disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires disability determinations to proceed through five sequential steps: current employment, severe impairment, listed impairment, residual functional capacity for past work, and ability to perform other work.

Hooper v. Colvin · filed 2016-08-05(a)(4)(i)-(v), (d)

The Commissioner’s determination of disability follows a sequential, five-step inquiry. ... First, the Commissioner must establish whether the claimant is presently employed. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is unemployed, at the second step the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” restricting her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(h). If the claimant has a severe impairment, the Commissioner moves to the third step and considers whether the medical severity of the impairment “meets or equals” a listing in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. ■§ 404.1520(a)(4)(hi). If so, ... the claimant is considered disabled. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If not, the Commissioner continues to the fourth step and determines whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Finally, if the claimant does not have the RFC to perform past relevant work, the Commissioner completes the fifth step and ascertains whether the claimant can do any other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

King v. SSA · filed 2016-08-23(a)(ii), (c)

At Step Two, the ALJ determines based on the record evidence whether the claimant has one or more medically determinable impairments that are severe. § 404.1520(a)(ii). An impairment or a combination of impairments is severe at Step Two if it “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner at step two to determine whether a claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments, and an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Wills v. Colvin · filed 2016-04-13(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the evaluation, the Commissioner must determine “whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.” ... Am impairment or combination of impairments is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; meeting or equaling a listing establishes disability.

Turley v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-14(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant who meets or equals a step three listing is conclusively disabled.

At step three, a claimant is presumptively eligible for benefits only by presenting medical evidence showing that an impairment meets all of the criteria for a listed impairment.

Toliver v. Admininstration Office of the General Counsel Civil Action Suite · filed 2018-12-06(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, “a claimant is presumptively eligible for benefits” if she proves that she “has an impairment that meets . . . an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments.” Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 935 (7th Cir. 2015); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). To meet this burden, a claimant must show that her impairment satisfies “all of the various criteria specified in the listing.” Ribaudo v. Barnhart, 458 F.3d 580, 583 (7th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added).

Meeting or medically equaling a listed impairment establishes disability at step three without further analysis.

Diane S. P. v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-21(d)

If a claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listing, that alone suffices to establish disability at step three, without need for further analysis.

At step three, § 404.1520 requires comparing the claimant’s impairment with the listed impairments and finding the claimant disabled if the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Wangler v. Saul · filed 2020-05-07(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s impairment to severe impairments recognized by the Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude a person from engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment is as severe or more severe than one of the enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled and award benefits. ... Because the ALJ did not consider Listing 8.05 initially and because the ALJ’s assessment of the evidence may be impacted on remand, the ALJ is instructed to evaluate Plaintiff’s IPK under Listing 8.05 and make a new determination at step three.

Section 404.1520(a) requires the Commissioner at step three to determine whether a claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

Gregory v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-09(a)

At step three of the disability evaluation process, the Commissioner must consider whether a claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal any of the relevant listing requirements of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if it does, the claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits.

Crowley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-12(a)(4)(iii)

During step three of the disability determination, an ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listings of presumptively disabling impairments set forth at 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listing, that ends the inquiry: the claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits.

At step three, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s medically determinable impairments to decide whether they meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

Brown v. Saul · filed 2020-06-15(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential process, an ALJ is required to analyze a claimant's medically determinable impairments to determine whether she meets or medically equals an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, a claimant is disabled only if the impairment meets every element of a listed impairment.

Jones v. Social Security · filed 2021-06-28(a)(4)

A claimant’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.

At step three, a claimant is disabled if the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, without further inquiry into later steps.

Buzzotta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, Social Security regulations provide that a claimant is disabled if he or she meets or medically equals a listed impairment set forth in the Listings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) (“If you have an impairment(s) that meets or equals one of our listings . . . we will find that you are disabled.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d), (“If you have an impairment(s) which . . . is listed in Appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment(s), we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.”). In other words, if a claimant meets or equals a Listing, he or she will be found disabled at this step “without further inquiry.”

Under § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), the twelve-month duration requirement is distinct from the separate severity determination, which must be assessed using the special technique.

Davis v. Berryhill · filed 2018-01-11(a)(4)(ii)

Second, Davis contends that the ALJ erred by concluding that her depression was not severe because it did not meet the requirement that her medically determinable impairment (or combination of impairments) must have lasted or be expected to last for at least twelve months. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). Davis has a point: a finding of duration says nothing about severity; and severity, as she points out, must be assessed using the special technique. See Craft, 539 F.3d at 674.

An impairment is severe at step two only if it significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; impairments causing no more than minimal functional limitations are non-severe.

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

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

Section 404.1520's step-two test requires an impairment to meet the duration requirement and significantly limit the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities to be considered severe.

Thompson v. Comissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-26(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the disability analysis, an ALJ determines whether the claimant has “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement . . . and significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.” ... Accordingly, the ALJ properly determined that Thompson’s right ankle condition was nonsevere because it only imposed functional limitations for a few months and therefore did not meet the durational requirement.

Section 404.1520(d) requires an impairment to meet the duration requirement and a listed impairment (or equal one) before the claimant is found disabled without considering age, education, or work experience.

Ojeda v. Berryhill · filed 2020-10-07(d)

To the extent the ALJ relied on one physical exam showing normal findings to conclude the listing requirements were not met, his decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Rather, the ALJ must consider the longitudinal record to determine whether a claimant meets the duration requirement. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (“If you have an impairment(s) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment(s), we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.”) (emphasis added); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1, § 1.00(H)(1) (“[A] longitudinal clinical record is generally important for the assessment of severity and expected duration of an impairment unless the claim can be decided favorably on the basis of the current evidence.”).

At step three, once an impairment is severe and satisfies the duration requirement, the analysis turns to whether it meets a listing rather than requiring the listed limitations themselves to persist continuously for twelve months.

Gunawan v. Saul · filed 2021-06-29(ii)

The ALJ determined that plaintiff’s MS was severe. That means it meets the twelve-month duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(ii)(“If you do not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement in § 404.1509, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are not disabled.”). Accordingly, when he and the medical expert got to step 3 and had to determine whether plaintiff’s MS met the listing, the twelve-month period ought to have been off the table.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ, when deciding whether a claimant can perform past relevant work, to consider the claimant’s entire medical condition, including impairments that are not severe.

Lustgarten v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-15(e)

In determining whether a claimant can perform her past relevant work despite her impairments, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s “entire medical condition,” including all impairments, whether severe or not. Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1987); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545, 416.920(e), & 416.945. Here, the ALJ considered the reports of headaches in Lustgarten’s medical records when making his determination regarding her residual functional capacity.

At the RFC stage, the regulation requires the ALJ to consider both severe and non-severe impairments.

Anderson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-19(e)

In determining a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider both severe and non-severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(e), 404.1545, 416.920(e), 416.945. In determining Anderson's RFC here, however, the ALJ discussed only Anderson's physical limitations but did not mention his mental and cognitive limitations.

At the residual-functional-capacity and work-determination stages, § 404.1520(e) requires consideration of non-severe impairments and any limitations they cause that are supported by the medical record.

Rogers v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-30(e)

Even assuming that on remand, and after reconsideration of the record as a whole, the ALJ again finds that plaintiff’s alleged mental health impairments do not qualify as severe impairments, the ALJ must nevertheless take plaintiff’s non-severe impairments (and any limitations from those impairments supported by the medical record) into account when formulating his RFC and when determining whether plaintiff is capable of performing his past relevant work or other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), 404.1545, SSR 96-8p.

After a severe impairment permits the claim to proceed beyond step two, § 404.1520 requires consideration of all impairments, including non-severe ones, in the later-step evaluation and residual-functional-capacity assessment.

Patrick v. Saul · filed 2019-09-11(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iv), (e)

Because the ALJ’s decision indicates an implicit determination that Patrick had at least one non-severe medically determinable impairment at Step Two, the ALJ was required to consider that impairment in the later steps of the sequential analysis.

At step five, the ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe, when determining residual functional capacity.

SWANEY v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-02-03(e)

The error in this case, however, is not harmless. As just mentioned, in determining an RFC at step five, an ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including non-severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(e) and 404.1545; SSR 96-8p. Despite acknowledgement that he must consider all evidence and all symptoms, both severe and non-severe, at step five,4 the ALJ fails to recognize, mention or discuss Plaintiff’s mental impairments at step five.

At step four, section 404.1520(e) requires the decision maker to consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe, when determining residual functional capacity.

Baines v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-07(e)

In this case, the ALJ specifically stated that in making a finding a regarding Plaintiff’s RFC, he must consider “all of [Plaintiff’s] impairments, including impairments that are not severe. Tr. at 24; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). The ALJ’s decision shows that he properly identified all of Plaintiff’s medically determinable severe and nonsevere impairments at step 2 of the decision.

Section 404.1520(e) requires adjudicators to consider the functional effects of severe and nonsevere impairments when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Rhone v. Social Security · filed 2022-07-21(e)

The ALJ must consider severe and nonsevere impairments in assessing a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) and 404.1545(a)(2) (requiring adjudicators to consider the functional effects of nonsevere impairments when assessing the RFC); SSR 96-8, 1996 WL 374184, *5 (“In assessing RFC, the adjudicator must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’”). ... For these reasons, the ALJ adequately considered Plaintiff’s nonsevere physical impairments when formulating the RFC.

Section 404.1520 requires an impairment found non-severe at step two to be considered at the later steps of the sequential evaluation, including in the residual functional capacity assessment.

SHENKO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-09-23(c)

However, an error [at step two of the sequential evaluation] can harm the claimant if an impairment is improperly found to be not medically determinable or when non-severe impairments are not considered at later steps.” Herring, 181 F. Supp. 3d at 277. ... In this case, after finding at step two that Plaintiff’s Crohn’s disease was non-severe, the ALJ never again considered the disease at any of the later steps of the sequential evaluation. R. 43–54; see also Herring, 181 F. Supp. 3d at 277. ... Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision at steps two and four.

The ALJ must consider all impairments, including those found non-severe at step two, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Course v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-03(e)

The same is true here. Because the ALJ decided step two in plaintiff's favor, the ALJ was required to consider evidence of any and all impairments, severe or not, in assessing plaintiff's RFC.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s severe impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment and to explain a finding that it does not when the record suggests the listing may be met.

Courson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-07(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant is disabled if his impairments meet or medically equal one of the specific requirements of a medical listing in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... But when a claimant, such as Courson, “appears to meet at least some of the requirements of a listing, the ALJ is obligated to explain his reasons for finding that the listing is not met.” ... Because the ALJ failed to address whether Courson’s degenerative disc disease met Listing 1.04, this Court cannot effectively review the ALJ’s decision at step three. Accordingly, this Court remands this matter so that the ALJ can address Listing 1.04.

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does, disability is conclusively presumed and no further analysis is required.

Sanchez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-15(d)

At step three of the Sequential Evaluation Process, the ALJ considers whether any of a claimant’s impairments “meets or medically equals” one of the listed impairments. If an impairment is found to meet or medically equal a listed impairment, it is conclusively presumed to be disabling, and there is no need for further analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment or combination significantly limits basic work activities.

Gibson v. Colvin · filed 2019-08-26(c)

Step two addresses whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that significantly limits her from performing basic work activities. Id. § 404.1520(c). ... On these facts, the court cannot conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding at step two that Plaintiff’s diabetes mellitus is non-severe. Accordingly, the court considers whether the ALJ erred.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments; failure to identify an impairment as severe is harmless when the ALJ considers its effects through another severe impairment.

Overstreet v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-03(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a “medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.” Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 140-41; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Assuming without deciding that Plaintiff could produce evidence sufficient to compel finding his “chronic lumbosacral/cervical strain” severe at step two, any error was harmless because the ALJ considered the effects of Plaintiff's back and musculoskeletal pain in the context of degenerative disc disease, which the ALJ found severe at step two.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires determining whether a claimant’s impairment is severe; an impairment is not severe if it is only a slight abnormality that does not significantly limit basic work activities.

Anderson v. Saul · filed 2019-09-11(c)

At Step Two of the sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether a claimant’s impairments are severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). While “severity is not an onerous requirement for the claimant to meet . . . it is also not a toothless standard.” Wright v. Colvin, 789 F.3d 847, 855 (8th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). An impairment is not severe if it amounts only to a slight abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment, and failure to evaluate a diagnosed impairment and its related evidence was not harmless.

Schwalje v. Saul · filed 2019-09-20(a)(4)(ii)

Step two of the sequential evaluation requires the ALJ to consider the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s failure to find Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder severe at step two was not harmless error, and reversal and remand on that basis is warranted. ... On remand, the ALJ shall consider Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder at step two of the sequential analysis and assess all the medical evidence in the record as a whole, including the evaluation of medical records and opinions of Plaintiff’s treating and consulting physicians under the appropriate standards, and in particular the records and opinions of Dr. Little.

At step two, only medically determinable impairments may be considered severe impairments.

Downs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-15(c)

Only medically determinable impairments can be considered severe impairments at step two of the disability evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Fibromyalgia was thus not a severe impairment at step two.

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

Wisniewski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-30(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). ... “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). ... An ALJ is also required to consider the “combined effect” of an individual’s impairments in considering severity. Id. ... Given this evidence, the mere fact plaintiff previously worked with this condition does not suffice as a basis to find it non-severe. The ALJ also erred in considering medical opinion and other evidence associated with BDD, as discussed below. The ALJ’s failure to sufficiently address the evidence associated with BDD at step two and beyond necessitates remand for further proceedings.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) permits the disability analysis to proceed beyond Step Two when the claimant has at least one severe impairment; any error in classifying other impairments is harmless if the ALJ considered them in the remaining steps.

Ward v. SSA · filed 2020-01-29(a)(4)

As long as the ALJ finds at least one of the claimant’s alleged impairments is severe in nature, the claim survives Step Two, and the ALJ moves on to the next step of the process. ... The finding that Plaintiff had at least one severe impairment required the ALJ to continue the five-step analysis. ... Thus, even assuming there was an error in determining the severity of some of Plaintiff’s impairments, it would be harmless to Plaintiff, as the finding that at least one impairment was severe was favorable to Plaintiff and allowed the ALJ to continue her analysis. The Court finds no error in this part of the ALJ’s analysis.

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

Jensen v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-31(c)

At step two, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that are severe. 20 CFR § 404.1520(c).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires the Commissioner to determine whether an impairment or combination of impairments is severe; an impairment is not severe only if it is a slight abnormality with no more than a minimal effect on the ability to do basic work activities.

Annette R. v. Saul · filed 2020-07-13(c)

At step two of the five-step sequential inquiry, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1289-90 (9th Cir. 1996); see 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 is merely “a slight abnormality (or combination of slight abnormalities) that has no more than a minimal effect on the ability to do basic work activities.” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... As there was substantial evidence that Plaintiff had a medically determinable impairment of fibromyalgia, the ALJ’s failure to address it at step two was error.

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits basic work activities; once any impairment is severe, the claim proceeds and all impairments are considered in later steps.

Conley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-14(c), (a)(4)

An impairment is considered “severe” at step two of the ALJ’s evaluation only if it “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Step two is considered “a de minimis hurdle that a claimant clears unless the impairment is only a slight abnormality that minimally affects work ability.” ... Second, even if these other conditions were improperly determined to be non-severe, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s bilateral foot disorder constitutes a severe impairment renders her argument moot. It is well-established that once an ALJ determines that at least one of a claimant’s alleged impairments is severe, the claim survives the step two screening process, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), and both severe and non-severe impairments are considered by the ALJ in the remaining steps of the disability evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1523(c), 404.1545(a)(2). An ALJ therefore does not commit reversible error when he fails to find that some impairments are not severe but determines that other impairments are severe and proceeds to the next step of the evaluation process.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires a severity determination, but an omission is harmless when the ALJ identifies another severe impairment, continues the sequential analysis, and considers all impairments in the RFC determination.

Lugo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-09(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ considers whether the claimant has at least one severe impairment or combination of impairments that meets the twelve-month durational requirement for establishing disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is severe if it “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522(a) (defining “non-severe” impairments). If the claimant does not have any severe impairments, then the claimant is not disabled, and the sequential evaluation ends. Id. However, if the claimant has at least one severe impairment or combination of impairments, then the evaluation continues, and the ALJ considers all impairments and symptoms when evaluating RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, 404.1545(a)(2). ... Even assuming, arguendo, that post-concussive syndrome should have been recognized as a separate severe impairment, any alleged error is harmless. If the ALJ fails to make a severity determination as to an impairment, it is a harmless error if the ALJ finds other severe impairments, and thus continues the disability analysis and considers all impairments in the RFC determination.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities to be severe; impairments causing no more than a minimal effect are nonsevere.

VARGAS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-04-19(c)

An “impairment or combination of impairments” is not severe if it does not “significantly limit[ ] your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), 404.1522. ... Here, at step two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s mental impairments were not severe because they caused no more than a minimal limitation on her ability to perform basic work activities. ... The foregoing analysis contains “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” that Plaintiff’s mental impairments are not severe. See Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. Accordingly, the Court finds it to be supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits basic work activities and has lasted or is expected to last at a severe level for twelve continuous months or is expected to result in death.

Frey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-20(c)

At step 2, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has one or more severe impairments. This is only a “threshold issue,” and, as long as the ALJ finds at least one severe impairment, she must continue on with the analysis. At step 4, she must consider the combined effect of all impairments, severe and non-severe. Thus, a failure to designate a particular impairment as “severe” at step 2 does not matter to the outcome of the case, as long as the ALJ finds that the claimant has at least one severe impairment. ... An impairment (or combination of impairments) is “severe” if it “significantly limit[s] an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities and must last or be expected to last at a ‘severe’ level for a continuous period of twelve months or be expected to result in death.” 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c).

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

Saechao v. Saul · filed 2021-09-30(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has one or more severe impairments that significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c); 416.920(a)(4)(ii) and (c). ... In sum, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s mental impairments are nonsevere is not supported by substantial evidence. ... If an ALJ does not consider all medically determinable impairments when assessing a claimant’s RFC, then an error at step two is not harmless. ... Here, the ALJ gave virtually no consideration to Plaintiff’s mental impairments when formulating her RFC. ... For this reason, the ALJ’s error is not harmless. On remand, the ALJ shall revisit the step two analysis and make findings consistent with this order.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, and failure to consider a known impairment is reversible error.

Simon v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-31(c)

At step two, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment (MDI) that is severe or a combination of impairments that are severe. 20 CFR § 404.1520(c). ... The Commissioner argues that because the ALJ found at least one severe impairment, any failure to include fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome or other impairments as severe impairments at step two would be harmless error. (Doc. 25 at pp. 9-10). This argument is without merit. Failure to consider a known impairment at step two is a ground for reversal. Colhoff v. Colvin, No. CIV. 13-5002, 2014 WL 1123518, at *5 (D.S.D. Mar. 20, 2014).

At step two, § 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment is severe; an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Delly v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-29(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Once an ALJ has determined a claimant has a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must then determine whether that impairment is “severe” for purposes of Social Security regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). As noted supra, the regulations define a “severe” impairment as an “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities . . .” 20 CFR § 404.1520(c). ... The ALJ thoroughly reviewed the medical evidence regarding Delly’s mental impairments at Step Two and found them not severe. (Tr. 25-28.) ... The ALJ considered Delly’s impairments, severe and non-severe, in the RFC analysis. There is no error.

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

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-26(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). ... Although Plaintiff contends, without citation to the record, that her IBS symptoms have been flaring, she has not shown or even argued that her IBS caused significant workplace limitations during the adjudicated period. Accordingly, she has not shown that the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff’s IBS did not significantly impair her ability to work, and was therefore, not severe during the adjudicated period.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to consider the combined effect of all of a claimant’s impairments at step two when determining severity.

Blome v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-02(c)

An ALJ is required to consider the effect of the “combination of impairments” during step two. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... At step two, the ALJ must consider “the combined effect of all of the claimant’s impairments . . . .” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). Because it is not clear the ALJ considered whether any combination of all Plaintiff’s impairments constitutes a severe combination, the Court finds legal error.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether an impairment is severe, meaning it has more than a minimal effect on the ability to do basic work activities.

(SS) Ware III v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-12(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines which of claimant’s alleged impairments are “severe” within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). “An impairment is not severe if it is merely ‘a slight abnormality (or combination of slight abnormalities) that has no more than a minimal effect on the ability to do basic work activities.’” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-3p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 10 (1996)). ... Here, plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by finding his alleged impairments of trigger finger and bilateral shoulder impingement not medically determinable, and his depression and hearing loss non-severe. ECF No. 18 at 9-12. With respect to trigger finger, the ALJ stated that “[n]o records show diagnosis of trigger thumbs and thus with no objective findings or tests to support a diagnosis, the undersigned finds this is not a medically determinable severe impairment.” AR 18. However, plaintiff points out in his briefing that examining physician Dr. David Suchard reported that “Mr. Ware developed bilateral trigger thumbs doing work activities, with symptoms having subsided now that he is no longer performing repetitive hand me activities” and, after noting upon examination “swelling of the proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands and both wrists and decreased tactile sensitivity, proprioception and temperature sensation in the hands,” diagnosed plaintiff with stenosing tenosynovitis of the thumbs (trigger finger) in May of 2019. AR 637. The ALJ’s rationale for finding plaintiff’s trigger finger not medically determinable is not borne out by the record and is error. Because the ALJ found this impairment not medically determinable rather than nonsevere, it was not necessarily calculated into the residual functional capacity. AR 17. Accordingly, this error requires remand.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment; an impairment is non-severe only when it is a slight abnormality with only a minimal effect on the ability to work.

Collins v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-13(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ decides whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” (see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii)), “meaning that it significantly limits the claimant’s ‘physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.’” Ford, 950 F.3d at 1148 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522(a)). ... An impairment is non-severe at step two only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has only a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290. Having credited the opinions of Drs. Wolfert, Bott, and Renfro, Plaintiff’s mental impairments must be considered to be “severe” for step two’s purposes. As for the upshot of the ALJ’s step two error, it cannot be argued that the error was harmless because Plaintiff’s mental impairments were not considered at step three, nor were their limitations encapsulated in the RFC.

Section 404.1520 requires sequential disability evaluation, and at step two an impairment is severe when it is more than a slight abnormality expected to interfere with the claimant’s ability to work.

Cardona v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-14(a)(4)

The Court agrees that the ALJ did not apply the proper legal standard for determining whether Plaintiff’s impairments are severe. ... The ALJ repeats multiple times the “significantly limits” language from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) that, as discussed, the Fifth Circuit has repudiated. ... Requiring Plaintiff to show that his impairments cause significant limitations on his ability to work contradicts the fact that, at step two, a claimant need only “make a de minimis showing that her impairment is severe enough to interfere with her ability to work.” ... The Court REJECTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation insofar as it concludes that the ALJ applied the proper legal standard at step two of his analysis under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential process to determine disability, including evaluating impairment severity at step two and continuing through the remaining steps while considering all impairments.

Pedelose · filed 2025-12-18(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s impairments at Step Two of the sequential evaluation. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Thus, because an ALJ considers all of a claimant’s impairments in the remaining steps of the disability determination, any perceived failure to “find additional severe impairments at step two ‘[does] not constitute reversible error.’”

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, severe and non-severe alike, individually and in combination, when deciding whether the impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

SHAH · filed 2026-02-27(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, severe and non-severe alike, both individually and in combination. Luna v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 14-6953, 2016 WL 3763339, at *5 n.1 (D.N.J. July 13, 2016); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).