20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s impairments at step two and to account for their functional effects in the disability determination even when they are not severe.

Ralston · filed 2026-03-20

Step two requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... If the ALJ determines that an impairment is “not severe” at step two, the claimant will not be found to be disabled on that basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Still, the RFC assessment must consider even findings of mild limitations.

Once a claimant has one severe impairment, the Secretary must continue the disability evaluation and may consider other conditions when assessing residual functional capacity; failing to classify another condition as severe is not reversible error in those circumstances.

Jerome MAZIARZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-08-31(c)

According to the regulations, upon determining that a claimant has one severe impairment, the Secretary must continue with the remaining steps in his disability evaluation as outlined above. ... Since the Secretary properly could consider claimant’s cervical condition in determining whether claimant retained sufficient residual functional capacity to allow him to perform substantial gainful activity, the Secretary’s failure to find that claimant’s cervical condition constituted a severe impairment could not constitute reversible error.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) permits an ALJ to assess whether a claimant’s impairments are severe in combination without separately classifying each impairment.

Elliott v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-30(c)

Therefore, since the ALJ found plaintiff has multiple impairments, it is not error for the ALJ to consider the impairments in combination and conclude that plaintiff has a “severe” combination of impairments because “One or more of the[ ] disorders impose some limitations on claimant’s ability to function in the workplace.” (R. 18).

At step two, an impairment is severe if it is more than a slight abnormality with more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work; substantial evidence must support an ALJ’s decision to exclude it.

March v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2008-06-02(c)

Pursuant to the Commissioner’s regulations, a severe impairment is “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... In sum, the Court finds a lack of substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision to exclude Plaintiffs allegations of a neck impairment and incontinence from the step 2 determination of severe impairments.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits basic work activities; an error in evaluating severity is harmful when the ALJ also omits the impairment from the RFC analysis.

Stoll v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-02(c)

Under the SSA’s regulations, an impairment is “severe” if it “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... The error here is not harmless, because the ALJ did not consider Plaintiff’s mental impairments beyond step two and did not incorporate them into her RFC determination.

At step two, an impairment need only affect the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; significant objective mental abnormalities are not required.

Patel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-22(c)

Moreover, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff “did not demonstrate any significant objective mental status abnormalities or deficits,” Tr. at 18 (citations omitted), effectively elevated the step two inquiry into something more than the requirement that an impairment merely affect an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 141; Simon, 7 F.4th at 1101 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits basic work activities; the limitation must meet the 12-month duration requirement.

(SS) Marez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-06(c)

An impairment is “severe” if it “significantly” limits a claimant’s ability to do “basic” work activities and “is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1509.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to assess the severity of a claimant’s impairments at step two; omitting impairments from the sequential evaluation can require remand when the court cannot determine whether the error was harmless.

Hamberg v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-07(a)(4)(ii)

Without any mention of these two impairments by the ALJ, much less any analysis at any step in the sequential equation, the Court cannot determine that the ALJ’s considered these impairments in isolation or in conjunction with Plaintiff’s other impairments, or that the ALJ’s error was harmless.

At step two, an impairment is severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; the severity threshold is de minimis.

Curthoys v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-23(c)

This Court finds from this medical evidence that Plaintiff thus minimally established significant limitations to performing work from her Meniere’s disease.

At step two, a severe impairment is a medically determinable impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Theil v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-03-18(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant has a “severe impairment.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). A severe impairment is a medically determinable impairment that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. ... Thus, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder was not a severe impairment.

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

Thomas v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-31(c)

This determination was supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a conclusion that Plaintiff’s hernia qualified as a severe impairment.

At step two, an impairment is nonsevere only if it has no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

McNeal v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-04-02(c)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s step two determination that Plaintiff's mental impairments are not severe. An impairment is “not severe” only if it involves a “slight abnormality” that has “no more than a minimal effect” on the individual’s ability to work.

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

ERAZO v. KIJAKAZI, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-04-18(c)

At step two, the ALJ is required to consider whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment (or combination of impairments) that is “severe” and lasts for the durational period. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... I am satisfied that the ALJ properly considered the evidence before him when evaluating the severity of Ms. Erazo’s symptoms, and I find that his conclusions at this step are supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, an impairment may be found non-severe when the evidence does not show that it significantly limits basic work activities.

Duncan · filed 2026-06-08(a)(4)(ii)

Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err by finding plaintiff’s lower extremity venous reflux/edema impairment to be non-severe.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether an impairment significantly limits basic work activities; substantial evidence may support a finding that a claimant’s mental impairments are non-severe.

Warren · filed 2026-06-22(c)

The opinions of Drs. Ransom, Fassler, and Dekeon were sufficient to support the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiffs mental impairments were non-severe. ... The ALJ’s step-two determination, therefore, was supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it is medically determinable and significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Weed v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-17(a)(4)(ii), (c)

To show that an impairment is severe, a claimant must show that she has (1) a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, which (2) significantly limits her physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, without regard to age, education, or work experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c); 404.1521(a), 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c); 416.921(a). ... Thus, the undersigned finds that the ALJ’s decision not to include Plaintiff’s sleep apnea among her severe impairments at Step Two was supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, the ALJ must identify medically determinable impairments and decide whether they are severe; failing to identify an impairment that is not medically determinable is harmless error.

Radel v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-18(c)

At step two, the ALJ must identify all impairments that are medically determinable7 and then the ALJ must determine whether those impairments are severe.8 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 404.1521, 404.1522, & 404.1523. ... If the ALJ failed to specifically mention a potential impairment, and that impairment is not medically determinable, such error would be harmless and would not require reversal and remand.

At step two, an impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

SMITH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-30(c)

The ALJ reviewed each of the plaintiff's alleged impairments and offered substantial support for the finding that the impairments were not severe.

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

Bourdeau v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-21(c)

A severe impairment is one that significantly limits the plaintiff’s physical and/or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(a), 416.921(a) (noting that an impairment is not severe at step two if it does not significantly limit a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities). ... Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record which supports the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff’s urologic condition was not a severe impairment during the period of alleged disability.

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

Tuttle v. Saul · filed 2021-05-20(c)

At the second step of the sequential evaluation analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether the claimant has proved that his or her "impairment or combination of impairments is severe, meaning that the impairments significantly limit the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." Balaguer v. Astrue, 880 F. Supp. 2d 258, 265 (D. Mass. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)). ... The expert opinions, along with Plaintiff's treatment records, activities, and the absence of treatment by medication for a mental condition provided substantial support for the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff's anxiety and depression, either singly or in combination, caused no more than "mild" limitations in the four broad areas of functional limitation (A.R. at 52-53).

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

Cubano v. Saul · filed 2022-02-18(c)

Conversely, an 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), 416.920(c). ... And Cubano does not point to evidence that she had migraine headaches or anxiety that significantly limited her ability to do basic work activities.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a severe impairment at step two; an impairment meets that low threshold when it is more than slight and affects basic work activities.

Wyles v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-10-04(c)

Based upon these records, the Court finds the ALJ should have found Plaintiff’s respiratory impairment meets the low or de minimis standard for a severe impairment.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe if it significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Verduzco v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(c)

The Court finds the record reflects evidence of Plaintiff’s foot impairments sufficient to pass the de minimis threshold of step two of the sequential evaluation process; therefore, Plaintiff’s claim of severe foot impairments was not “groundless.”

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether an impairment significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

(SS) Sutton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-08(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines which of Plaintiff’s alleged impairments are “severe” within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). ... While Plaintiff may disagree with the inferences drawn by the ALJ from the evidence and may offer an alternative interpretation of it, the Court finds that ALJ’s step two findings are reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, an ALJ may find an impairment non-severe when the medical evidence supports that it has no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

(SS) Ervin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-12(a)(4)(ii)

Given the citations contained throughout the decision, the court finds no error in the ALJ’s treatment of plaintiff’s eczema as a non-severe condition at step two.

Section 404.1520(c) does not require an impairment to be classified as severe merely because its mild limitations are included in the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Hernandez v. O'Malley · filed 2023-09-12(c)

Accordingly, it was not inconsistent for the ALJ to include ... Plaintiff’s mental limitations in the RFC but also to characterize those limitations ... as non-severe, and neither was it error to rely upon that finding of non-severity in ... rejecting Dr. Jones’s reports.

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

Webster v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-26(c)

In this case, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s history of dysphagia, tremors, and balance issues and concluded they were not severe impairments because they presented only “a minimal limitation in [Plaintiff’s] ability to perform basic work activities.”100 ... This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Heffernan v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-19(c)

A severe impairment is one that significantly limits the claimant’s “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... For these reasons, the ALJ’s step two assessment that Plaintiff’s headaches were not a medically determinable severe impairment is supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits basic work activities; the threshold screens out groundless claims.

John v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-25(c)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the record reflects evidence of Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia sufficient to pass the de minimis threshold of step two of the sequential evaluation process; therefore, Plaintiff’s claim of severe fibromyalgia was not “groundless.”

At step two, an impairment or combination of impairments is severe only if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, and the claimant bears the burden of proving severity during the relevant period.

Chapman v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-11-03(c)

At step two, a plaintiff must show the impairment or combination of impairments is “severe,” within the meaning of the regulations, meaning that it “significantly limits [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... The record was sufficient and the ALJ made the correct determination that Plaintiff did not meet her burden of proving she had a severe impairment during the relevant time.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires consideration of all evidence in the case record when deciding whether a claimant is disabled, including relevant medical observations from earlier adjudicated periods.

Driehorst v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-23(a)(3)

While the relevant period for assessing disability on the current application may have begun on July 23, 2011, “a doctor’s medical observations regarding a claimant’s allegations of disability” that “date from earlier, previously adjudicated periods” “are nevertheless relevant to the claimant’s medical history and should be considered by the ALJ.” Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1215 (10th Cir. 2004); cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a . . . decision whether you are disabled.”).

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

Thieme-Knight v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(a)(3)

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

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record, but evidence outside the alleged disability period need not be addressed unless it is probative of the claimant’s condition during the relevant period.

Underhill, Larry v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2020-05-21(a)(3)

Although the ALJ is required to consider “all evidence” in the case record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3), she need not account for evidence that falls outside the period of alleged disability unless that evidence is probative of the claimant’s condition during the relevant period.

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

Vazquez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-03(a)(3)

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

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

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a)(3)

An ALJ must consider all relevant record evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). But, “there is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his decision, so long as the ALJ’s decision … is not a broad rejection which is not enough to enable [the Court] to conclude that [the ALJ] considered [the claimant’s] medical condition as a whole.”

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

Franasiak v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19(a)(3)

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

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the SSA to consider all evidence in the record when evaluating a disability claim.

Brooker v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-13(a)(3)

Moreover, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) provides that the SSA will consider all evidence in the record in evaluating a claim for disability.

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

Short v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(a)(3)

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

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

Pecore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-23(a)(3)

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

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

Kinslow-Dobbs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-23(a)(3)

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

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

Raulerson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-23(a)(3)

The ALJ is required to consider all the evidence in the record when making a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3). ... Therefore, the ALJ erred by failing to properly consider the treatment records from Dr. Pinto, consisting of “crucial portions of medical evidence” with regard to Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome, and by “not providing good cause for doing so.”

Section 404.1520(3) requires consideration of all evidence in the case record but does not require an ALJ to discuss each piece of diagnostic and treatment information individually.

Davis v. SSA · filed 2022-06-23(3)

While ALJ Stanley must consider this evidence, he was not required to address these documents individually because, instead of being treated as medical opinions, they are simply records that indicate Davis’ symptoms and diagnoses—nothing in the Code of Federal Regulations requires that he discuss each piece of diagnostic and treatment information.2 (Doc. # 13-3 at 4-8); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(3) (“We will ... consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled.”); see generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520b, and 404.1520c (explaining how medical opinions and other evidence are considered).

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

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-26(a)(3)

The relevant regulations require the ALJ to “consider all evidence in [the] case record when [he] makes a determination or decision whether [claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3).

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

Yrigoyen v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-04(a)(3)

At bottom, the ALJ must “consider all evidence in [the] case record when [making] a determination or decision whether [the claimant] is disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). This means that in addition to discussing supporting evidence, the ALJ must “discuss the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon, as well as significantly probative evidence he rejects.”

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

Hill v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-16(a)(3)

But, an ALJ is to consider all evidence in the case record when making a disability determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

After a severe impairment is established, § 404.1520 requires the Administration to consider all record evidence when determining whether the claimant is disabled.

Frazer v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-13(a)(3), (4)

But once a severe impairment is established, the Administration must consider all the evidence in the record to determine whether the applicant’s impairments disable her from working. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3), (4). ... The ALJ may not have been required to find that Frazer was disabled, but he erred by wholly ignoring evidence of a potential limitation. Remand is thus proper.

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

Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-30(a)(3)

In determining whether the Commissioner’s findings were based on substantial evidence, the Court must ascertain that the agency considered all evidence in the case record to reach its findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). ... However, the ALJ properly considered Gomez’s allegations, the objective evidence, and the medical examinations of Dr. Gupta, Dr. Nikkah, and Dr. Koocher. AR 17–24.

The regulation requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record, including all relevant medical and other evidence when determining residual functional capacity.

Lawyer v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-28(a)(3), (e)

When determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider all the evidence in a case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3); see also id. § 404.1520(e) (RFC decisions based on “all the relevant medical and other evidence”).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires the agency to consider all evidence in the case record when determining whether a claimant is disabled, including potentially relevant pre-onset work history.

Donacick v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-30(a)(3)

The Court may consider pre-onset work history here because it is relevant. ... In general, the government must evaluate all relevant evidence, which may include pre-onset work history. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (stating that the government “will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled”); id. § 404.1545(a)(1) (noting that a claimant’s RFC must be based on “all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record).5 Plaintiff cites no authority to the contrary.

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

Sullivan · filed 2026-02-24(a)(3)

The ALJ is required to consider “all evidence in [a claimant’s] case record” when making a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when deciding disability, but it does not require the ALJ to discuss every piece of evidence.

Kuntz · filed 2026-03-23(a)(3)

To be sure, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, which governs evaluations of disability, instructs ALJs to “consider all evidence in your case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2 (directing ALJs to “consider all of the evidence in an individual’s record” when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms for disability claims). But “a duty to ‘consider’ the evidence is different from a duty to ‘discuss’ the evidence.” Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:24-CV-1690, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92360, 2025 WL 1400727, at *8 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:24-CV-1690, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91518, 2025 WL 1398698 (N.D. Ohio May 14, 2025).

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires consideration of all evidence in the record when determining disability.

Ramos-Munoz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-19(a)(3)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, all of the evidence in the record must be considered.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires consideration of all evidence in the claimant’s case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Richardson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(a)(3)

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

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

Ambrose v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-16(a)(3)

In evaluating a claim of disability, the Commissioner “will consider all evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (emphasis added). Relevant evidence includes objective medical evidence, such as laboratory results or observable abnormalities; medical opinions; other medical evidence; nonmedical evidence; and prior administrative findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513.

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

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-11(a)(3)

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

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

Hamill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(a)(3)

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

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

Goeller v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-14(a)(3)

Further, it would be error for the ALJ not to acknowledge medical evidence predating the onset date because 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to “consider all evidence in [the] case record when [she] makes a determination or decision whether [claimant is] disabled” and because the ALJ must “discuss the significantly probative evidence he rejects.”

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

Van Dyne v. Saul · filed 2021-03-31(a)(3)

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

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

Zartman v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-28(a)(3)

The ALJ is required to “consider all evidence in [the] case record when [he] make[s] a determination or decision whether [the claimant is] disabled,” including evidence that predates a claimant's alleged onset date.

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

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

But the remaining sections of the regulations advised that the ALJ would “consider all evidence in [the] case record” when determining whether the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (emphasis added).

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

Manago v. Saul · filed 2021-09-26(a)(3)

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

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

Jones v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-19(a)(3)

The Court finds the ALJ erred by citing evidence indicating Plaintiff’s mental impairments were not significant while ignoring evidence to the contrary. ... see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record. . . .”).

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, including evidence outside the relevant time period.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-04(a)(3)

While this evidence does not fall within the relevant time period, an ALJ must consider “all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision” as to whether an individual is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). Such evidence includes evidence that pre- or post-dates the relevant time period.

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

Rabbitt v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-09(a)(3)

An ALJ is precluded from ignoring evidence of an impairment or combination of impairments presented by a claimant. ... Here, the ALJ omitted ten diagnosed conditions. ... Instead of addressing each impairment, the ALJ recited select portions of the medical record pertaining only to Plaintiff’s physical and mental symptoms; omitted all diagnoses pertaining to these symptoms; and omitted evidence pertaining to the duration and severity of these symptoms.

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

Reynolds v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-11(a)(3)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3), the ALJ is required to “consider all evidence in [the] case record when [she] make[s] a determination or decision whether [the plaintiff] is disabled.” ... In this case, the ALJ committed legal error in failing to exhibit Dr. Fishman’s November 2019 assessment. ... Therefore, the ALJ’s failure to exhibit Dr. Fishman’s November 2019 opinion was legal error, so the ALJ’s reasoning for rejecting Dr. Fishman’s other opinions was based on that legal error, which warrants reversal.

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

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

Plaintiff cited the general rule that the agency will consider “all evidence in your case record” in evaluating a disability claim. That did not occur in this case.

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

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

Rather, the ALJ only needed to consider such material, which he did. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled.”

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

Klempel v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-26(a)(3)

The regulations require the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when he makes a determination or decision whether claimant is disabled.” Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1166 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3)) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). ... The Court finds that the ALJ has adequately considered the entire record and reached a decision supported by substantial evidence.

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

Adeyemi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-12(a)(3)

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

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

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

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

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

Ornelas v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-03(a)(3)

The Social Security Regulations require that an ALJ consider “all evidence in [the] case record when we make a determination or decision whether [the claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). This includes evidence that predates the onset date.

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

Swingle v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-16(a)(3)

Under the Social Security regulations, an ALJ “will consider all evidence in [a claimant’s]case record when [he] make[s]a determination or decision whether [a claimant is]disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). “District courts in the Fourth Circuit have held that ‘all evidence’under § 404.1520(a)(3) includes medical records predating a claimant’s alleged onset date.”

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

Bromage v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-30(a)(3)

This is incorrect. The ALJ must “consider all evidence in [the] case record.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

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

Seymour v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-29(a)(3)

While the ALJ was not required to evaluate the persuasiveness of Dr. Medic’s statements, they were still required to consider them: an ALJ must “consider all evidence in [a] case record” in reaching a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3).

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

Grady v. Saul · filed 2024-10-28(a)(3)

Yet, there is a complete absence of any discussion of this impairment in his 2020 Decision; it appears, therefore, the ALJ failed to consider the impact Plaintiff’s bipolar symptoms would have on her RFC. Such failure warrants a remand. ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled.”

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires consideration of all evidence in the case record, including evidence that predates the alleged onset date.

HOWES v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2024-12-04(a)(3)

As a threshold matter, the ALJ was required to evaluate “all evidence in [the] case record,” even if it predated the Plaintiff’s amended alleged onset date of February 2, 2021. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3).

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

FLANAGIN v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2025-01-24(a)(3)

The ALJ was required to evaluate all of the record evidence, which necessarily included the Plaintiff’s medical appointment attendance record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

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

Groleau v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-17(3)

Social Security regulations require ALJs to consider evidence they receive from claimants about their symptoms and limitations when evaluating a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(4) (defining “evidence from nonmedical sources”), 404.1520(3)(“We will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination[.]”), 404.1520b (“After we review all of the evidence relevant to your claim, we make findings about what the evidence shows.”), 404.1529(c)(3) (“[W]e will carefully consider any other information you may submit about your symptoms.”), 404.1545(a)(3) (“We will assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”).

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

Blohm v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-10(a)(3)

The ALJ must consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record when making a disability determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3); 416.920(a)(3). Under the “significant probative evidence” standard, an ALJ is not required to discuss all evidence presented, but “must explain why significant probative evidence has been rejected.” Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi, 35 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th Cir. 1984)). Here, the ALJ reviewed all relevant medical evidence and concluded the imaging studies classified her condition as mild. AR 24. The ALJ’s opinion discusses multiple imaging studies from August and September 2022, as well as March and April 2023, in determining the nature and severity of plaintiff’s spinal impairments AR 24, 625-27, 636-45, 728-29, 742-49. ... Accordingly, the Court finds no reversible error in the ALJ’s treatment of the MRI evidence.

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

Chaney · filed 2025-10-29(a)(3)

Although it may influence their persuasive values, the temporal remoteness of these three medical opinions from the alleged disability onset date provides no basis to disregard them. They still must be considered, which the ALJ failed to do.

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

Olivas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-01(a)(3)

The Appeals Council also referenced in its remand order the regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.929. These sections discuss, in general, the five-step sequential evaluation process. They do not give any specific guidance regarding the ALJ’s evaluation of the claimant’s subjective symptom testimony other than to say that “[w]e will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(a)(3).

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

Sansone v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-07(a)(3)

An ALJ may not “pick and choose through an uncontradicted medical opinion, taking only the parts that are favorable to a finding of nondisability,” without explaining her reasoning. Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205, 1208 (10th Cir. 2007). While “an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence,” he must “discuss the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon, as well as significantly probative evidence he rejects.” Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record . . . .”). The ALJ in this case engaged in prohibited picking and choosing.

Section 404.1520(b) provides that a claimant is not considered disabled if, after the alleged onset date, the claimant engages in substantial gainful activity.

BORRELLI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-27(b)

Under the Social Security Act, a claimant is not considered disabled if they have engaged in “substantial gainful activity” for any period of time after the alleged onset date.

Section 404.1520(a)(4), together with the duration rule, requires an impairment to last or be expected to last at least 12 continuous months unless it is expected to result in death.

Kozera v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-30(a)(4)

Unless an impairment is expected to result in death, to meet the “duration requirement,” the impairment must have lasted or must be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 404.1520(a)(4)Gu). This evidence does not show Plaintiff had medically determinable impairments that met the 12-month durational requirement, since January 2017 is the onset date given by Plaintiff for the symptoms documented in Dr. Ellison’s notes, Tr. 1242, and nothing in the record suggests that the impairment is expected to last for twelve months.

At step two, a claimant need only meet a threshold severe-impairment requirement, and the ALJ must consider all impairments in the later steps.

White v. Commissioner · filed 2019-12-27(c)

Step 2 only sets a threshold requirement that a person must meet to proceed with the rest of the Analysis. The ALJ considers all impairments, whether severe or non-severe, in the remainder of the Analysis.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Hawkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-09(c)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has one or more "severe" impairments that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Upon review, there is no step two error in this case. ... And it is the limiting effects of symptomatology, not mere diagnosis, that matters when assessing severity at step two. ... In this case, the ALJ acknowledged the fact of plaintiff's prior migraine headaches, examined the record evidence, and determined they were well-controlled with medication during the relevant time period. ... Accordingly, this argument will be rejected.

Section 404.1520(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities to qualify as severe at step two.

Rhodes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-14(c)

Even if Plaintiff is correct that her headaches persisted even with Botox and other medications, she does not show this condition causes significant workplace limitations such that the condition should be considered severe at step two. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c) (“If you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment[.]”).

At step two, the regulation directs the ALJ to assess impairment severity together with the required duration, so a severe-impairment finding reflects satisfaction of that duration requirement.

Danello v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-14(a)(4)(ii)

Moreover, Defendant’s durational argument is curious because it directly contradicts the ALJ’s specific findings at step-two of the sequential analysis. To that end, at step-two, the ALJ is directed to consider the severity of the impairments in relation to the durational requirement in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). The ALJ found Plaintiff’s “degenerative joint disease” was a severe impairment, i.e., it met the durational requirement. Though the ALJ is not clear exactly what he meant by “degenerative joint disease” the Court assumes he was referring to Plaintiff’s knee and hip conditions.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits basic work activities, and a failure to label an additional impairment severe at step two may be harmless if it is considered at later steps.

Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-17(c)

As set forth in the regulations, “[i]f you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... This Court also finds that although the ALJ did not employ the special technique and did not find intellectual disability and/or borderline intellectual functioning as severe disorder(s) during his severity analysis (step two), this error was harmless as he considered Plaintiff’s diminished intellectual abilities in deciding whether her impairments met or equaled the listings (step three) and in formulating her RFC (step four).

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

(SS) Fideldy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-04(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is deemed to be severe at step two if it “significantly limits [plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a). ... Plaintiff has not identified any specific obesity-related impairments that would result in a more limited RFC than the one arrived at by the ALJ, who found “no evidence of any specific or quantifiable impact [of obesity] on pulmonary, musculoskeletal, endocrine, or cardiac functioning.” AT 19. Thus the undersigned finds no error based on the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff’s obesity was non-severe.

Section 404.1520(c) requires an ALJ at step two to determine whether an impairment or combination lasting or expected to last at least 12 months limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Inzinca v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-11(c)

In step two of the sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether an impairment or combination of impairments that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months limits claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.R.F. §§ 404.1509, 404.1520(c).

At step two, an impairment must significantly limit basic work activities and satisfy the duration requirement; when deciding a claim before 12 months have elapsed, the ALJ must consider whether the impairment is expected to last for 12 months.

Fulwiley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-14(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ considers the “medical severity” of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A “severe impairment” is defined as “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... In addition, before a claim can proceed from step two to step three, an ALJ must find that a severe impairment meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... But the ALJ did not reach such a conclusion. Instead, the ALJ relied exclusively on the duration requirement. And the ALJ erred by failing to consider whether Plaintiff’s depression could be expected to last for twelve months given the date of the determination.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires a severe medically determinable impairment, or a severe combination of impairments, that meets the duration requirement; otherwise, the claimant is found not disabled.

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-30(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step, we consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). 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.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires a claimant to establish a severe medically determinable impairment or severe combination that satisfies the duration requirement; otherwise the claimant is not disabled.

CRAMER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-04-03(a)(4)(ii)

As explained in the following agency regulation, each case is evaluated by the Commissioner according to a five-step process: ... (ii) At the second step, we consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). If you do not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement in §404.1590, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are not disabled. ... 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(4) (references to other regulations omitted). ... Given this, the ALJ’s finding at stage 2 that Joseph C. had not shown the existence of a severe impairment regarding his orthopedic claims is well-supported by the medical record, seen in the light of the relevant agency regulations.

At step two, a severe impairment must meet the twelve-month duration requirement.

Spies v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-26(a)(4)(ii)

In his Step Two analysis of Spies’ strokes, the ALJ combined the severity requirement of Step Two with the durational requirement. ... The Court finds substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Spies failed to satisfy her burden to establish that her strokes met the twelve-month duration requirement.

Section 404.1520 requires an impairment to be severe at step two and to last or be expected to last at least 12 months.

Martinez-Lopez v. Colvin · filed 2014-10-22(a)(4)(ii)

Under the Social Security regulations, an impairment is only considered severe at step two if it is expected to result in death or if it has lasted, or is expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(h), 416.920(a)(4)(h). Because the ALJ determined that the plaintiffs arthritis and obesity were only severe during pregnancy, he determined that they did not satisfy the duration requirement, and thus were “non-severe” for purposes of the disability analysis. (Dec. 3, 7; Tr. 16, 20). This court concludes that these findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) makes substantial gainful activity a threshold first step, while § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires evaluating whether each impairment is severe before proceeding.

Mallard v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ proceeded in accordance with applicable law, using the appropriate sequential evaluation. At step one, the ALJ found in Plaintiff’s favor that she had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her application date. Tr. 15. ... A step-one finding that a claimant did not have substantial gainful activity merely allows the process to move forward; it is not a finding of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i) (“At the first step, [the SSA] will consider your work activity . . . If you are doing substantial gainful activity, [the SSA] will find that you are not disabled.”). ... At step two, the ALJ considered the severity of each of the impairments that Plaintiff claimed prevented her from working. See Tr. 16; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A medically determinable impairment is severe if it “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) ends the sequential evaluation at step one only when the claimant is doing substantial gainful activity; when the claimant is not presently engaged in such activity, the analysis must continue to step two.

(SS) James v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-18(a)(4)(i)

The regulations inform claimants: “At the first step, we will consider your work activity, if any. If you are doing substantial gainful activity, we will find that you are not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). ... Significantly, courts have consistently indicated a claimant satisfies her burden at step one where she is not presently engaged in substantial gainful activity. ... Because Plaintiff had stopped working and was no longer engaged in substantial gainful activity at the time of the hearing—as the ALJ acknowledged—she met her burden at step one. Thus, the ALJ should have continued the analysis to step two and erred in terminating the sequential analysis prematurely.

Section 404.1520(b) requires a claimant who is engaged in substantial gainful activity to be found not disabled at the first step.

MARIANI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-10-23(b)

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations6 for determining disability that require application of a five-step sequential analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. This five-step process is summarized as follows: ... 1. If the claimant currently is engaged in substantial gainful employment, he will be found “not disabled.”

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) makes step one of the sequential evaluation turn on whether the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity, and failure at that step ends the inquiry.

Campbell v. Saul · filed 2020-03-11(a)(4)(i)

...The claimant bears the burden of proving disability at step one of the sequential process, see Talavera, 697 F.3d at 151, and, if he fails to do so, the inquiry does not proceed to the next step, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). We find no error in the ALJ’s conclusion that Campbell failed to meet his burden at step one.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) requires the ALJ to decide at step one whether the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity; the court held that this step cannot be bypassed without a conclusive determination.

Abramson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-30(a)(4)(i)

At the first step of the five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine if a claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity”; if so, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). ... Because the first step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is “mandated by law,” it “cannot be bypassed without a conclusive determination.” ... The lack of a conclusive step one determination is an outstanding issue that must be resolved before a proper disability determination can be made in this case.

At the first step, a claimant who is engaged in substantial gainful activity is found not disabled regardless of medical condition, age, education, or work experience.

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-11(a)(4)(i), (b)

The Commissioner applies a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Relevant here, at the first step of the evaluation, the claimant must show that he is not engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If a claimant is found to be engaged in substantial gainful activity then he will be found “not disabled regardless of [his] medical condition or [his] age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) directs the SSA to deny a disability claim at step one when the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Tureskis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-03(a)(4)(i)

The ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff is not disabled because she earned SGA-level income is supported by substantial evidence. To backtrack, at the first step of the sequential evaluation process, a claimant must show she is not engaged in SGA. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), (b), 416.920(a)(4)(i), (b).

Section 404.1520(b) requires the ALJ to definitively determine at step one whether the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity before proceeding to steps two through five.

SAPP v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-09(b)

For the reasons expressed above, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff is not totally disabled as of June 24, 2015 must be reversed and remanded because step one of the sequential step analysis must be established prior to the assessment of steps two through five.

Section 404.1520(b) requires a claimant who engages in substantial gainful activity to be found not disabled regardless of the claimant's medical condition, age, education, or work experience.

Wallace v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-02(b)

If a claimant engages in any SGA, then the claimant is not disabled “regardless of [his] medical condition or [his] age, education, or work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1571 (“If you are able to engage in substantial gainful activity, we will find that you are not disabled.”).

Section 404.1520(b) requires the SSA to find a claimant not disabled at step one when the claimant is performing substantial gainful activity, regardless of medical condition or other vocational factors.

Harp v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-11(b)

“If you are working and the work you are doing is substantial gainful activity, we will find that you are not disabled regardless of your medical condition or your age, education, and work experience.”

At step one, § 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine whether a claimant is performing substantial gainful activity and treats such activity as disqualifying for disability.

Gilkey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-21(a)(4)(i), (b)

At step one, an ALJ must determine if a claimant is performing substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not disabled, regardless of their medical condition, age, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b).

At step one, the ALJ considers the claimant’s work activity and will find the claimant not disabled if the claimant is doing substantial gainful activity.

Forbes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-09(a)(4)(i)

Here, however, Forbes had not been awarded benefits, and thus engaging in SGA is not necessarily fatal as the ALJ suggested. But the ALJ did not treat Forbes’s SGA as fatal, as he continued through the entire five-step analysis—concluding that Forbes was not disabled from January 29, 2016, through the date of the decision, May 6, 2020. (AR 37). Leaving aside for a moment Forbes’s amended alleged onset date, the ALJ was required under the relevant regulations, to determine at step one whether Forbes had engaged in SGA. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i) (“At the first step, we consider your work activity, if any. If you are doing substantial gainful activity, we will find that you are not disabled.”), 416.920 (same).

Section 404.1520 requires disability to be determined through a five-step sequential evaluation, beginning with whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; if so, the claimant is not disabled.

Carlson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-24(b)

At step one of the ALJ’s analysis, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant is engaging in “substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). ... If a claimant is working and the ALJ finds that the work is substantial gainful activity, the ALJ will find that the claimant is not disabled regardless of their medical condition, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If the claimant is not engaging in substantial gainful activity, the ALJ’s analysis proceeds to the second step. 20 C.F.R. § 1520(a)(4). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff engaged in substantial gainful activity beginning in February 2020 is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1520 requires the SSA to determine at step one whether a claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity and to find the claimant not disabled if so.

Clarke v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-02(a)(4)(i), (b)

At step one, the SSA first considers a claimant’s work activity to see if it constitutes SGA. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If a claimant is doing SGA, the SSA will find the claimant “not disabled.” Id.

Section 404.1520(b) requires the Commissioner to find a claimant not disabled at step one when the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Stafford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-28(b)

At step one, if a claimant is found to have engaged in SGA, the Commissioner will find the claimant not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). ... Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the ALJ’s calculations were erroneous, but even if he had demonstrated error in the ALJ’s step one findings, such error would be harmless because the ALJ found that Plaintiff had established at least one continuous 12-month period in which he did not engage in SGA and continued on to the subsequent steps in the analysis. (PageID.646.)

At step one, § 404.1520(a)(4)(i) requires consideration of a claimant’s work activity, and § 404.1520(b) requires a finding of not disabled when the claimant engages in substantial gainful activity.

Brown v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-26(a)(4)(i), (b)

At step one of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers the claimant’s work activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity,” the ALJ must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). ... There were not 30-day periods of unemployment between any of the jobs. Thus, the work does not appear to qualify as a UWA. Plaintiff bears the burden in establishing prior work qualifies as a UWA at step one, and Plaintiff has not met that burden here. ... The ALJ did not err at step one. Plaintiff is not entitled to remand on these grounds.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) and (b) require the ALJ to determine at step one whether a claimant engages in substantial gainful activity and provide that a claimant engaged in such activity is not disabled.

Nadon v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-28(a)(4)(i), (b)

A claimant cannot be found disabled if engaged in substantial gainful activity, regardless of the claimant’s medical condition, age, education, and/or work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), (b), 416.920(a)(4)(i), (b). ... Therefore, the ALJ erred at step one by finding that Nadon was engaged in substantial gainful activity from July 2021 to the end of 2022. Nonetheless, the ALJ’s error at step one was harmless.

Section 404.1520(b) requires a claimant who is engaging in substantial gainful activity to be found not disabled at step one, regardless of medical condition, age, education, or work experience.

Douthit v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-08(b)

The first step involves a determination of whether the claimant has worked since filing for benefits and whether the work is substantial gainful activity. If the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the claimant cannot be found to be disabled, regardless of their medical condition, age, education, or work experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b); see also Thomas, 359 Fed. Appx. at 762 (“A claimant will be disqualified at step one if he or she is engaged in "substantial gainful activity.”).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s work activity at step one, and section 404.1520(b) directs a finding of not disabled when the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Lentz v. O'Malley · filed 2024-11-25(a)(4)(i), (b)

At step one of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers the claimant’s work activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i); 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity,” the ALJ must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b); 416.920(b). ... The ALJ failed to perform an adequate step one analysis, including assessment of whether the evidence of special conditions/sheltered work rebutted the presumption that Plaintiff’s work was SGA; and the ALJ failed to properly develop the record. Accordingly, the ALJ’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) requires the SSA to find a claimant not disabled when the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity.

Derden v. Berryhill · filed 2025-07-25(a)(4)(i)

Pursuant to SSA regulations, claimants are not found to be disabled during periods in which they engage in “substantial gainful activity,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i), which is defined as “work activity that is both substantial and gainful,” id. § 404.1572.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) provides that benefits are denied for a period when a claimant engages in substantial gainful activity, while section 404.1520(a)(4) directs the evaluation to continue to the next step if the claimant has not.

King v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-08(a)(4)(i), (a)(4)

If the ALJ finds a claimant engaged in SGA during the relevant time period, benefits are denied for that period. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If a claimant has not engaged in SGA, the disability evaluation process moves on to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

At the first step of the disability evaluation, substantial gainful activity requires denial of benefits regardless of the claimant’s medical condition.

Nappa v. Secretary of the United States Department of Health & Human Services · filed 1990-03-02(b)

First, the AU must determine whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, and if she is, benefits must be denied regardless of the claimant’s medical condition.

At step one, substantial gainful activity in some years does not end the disability evaluation when the claimant also had continuous 12-month periods without it.

Brandon v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-16(a)(4)(i)

In sum, the ALJ did not err at step one of the sequential disability evaluation process by finding that Plaintiff engaged in substantial gainful activity in 2017 and 2019.

At step one, a claimant who is doing substantial gainful activity is found not disabled.

Wilbourn-Winters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-16(a)(4)(i)

To reiterate, at step one a claimant is found not disabled if she is “doing substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i).

At step one, substantial gainful activity precludes a disability finding regardless of the severity of the claimant’s impairments.

Howze v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-01(b)

Therefore, no matter the severity of her alleged impairments, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b), Howze does not qualify as disabled.

At step one, the regulation directs the ALJ to consider the claimant's actual work activity, including the work performed and earnings derived from it.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(a)(4)(i)

Moreover, and more importantly, the question before the ALJ at step one of the analysis was not what kind of work Plaintiff’s physicians recommended that she do, but what kind of work she was actually doing and how much money she earned doing it. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i) (“At the first step, we consider your work activity, if any.”); id. § 404.1574(a)(1) (“Generally, in evaluating your work activity for substantial gainful activity purposes, our primary consideration will be the earnings you derive from the work activity.”).

At Step 5, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform work other than her past relevant work.

ROMANO-CHICK v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-10-23(g)

If, as here, the ALJ reaches the Step 5 question of whether the claimant can perform work available in the national economy, the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that the claimant can perform work other than her past relevant work.

At step five, the ALJ evaluates whether the claimant's residual functional capacity, together with age, education, and work experience, permits other work available in the national economy.

Gonzalez-Santiago v. Social Security · filed 2020-12-30(a)(4)(v)

Next, Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred at step five in the sequential process by finding that there was work that he could perform existing in significant numbers in the national economy. ... 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). ... As stated earlier, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination and Plaintiff cannot rehash his RFC argument at this final step. ... The ALJ provided an accurate hypothetical to the VE, and thus, the step five determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(g) shifts the burden to the Commissioner at Step 5 to show that a claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

BOTTING v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2021-05-12(g)

The ALJ reached Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987).

Section 404.1520's sequential evaluation requires the Commissioner, at the final step, to assess the claimant's qualifications and determine whether significant numbers of jobs exist that the claimant can perform.

Valentin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-09(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 a significant number of 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), 416.920(f); see also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460, 103 S. Ct. 1952, 76 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1983). ... Absent the three jobs identified by the Vocational Expert, her opinion lacked a sufficient foundation. By adopting the Vocational Expert’s opinion, the ALJ lacked proof of other work that Plaintiff could perform given her RFC. The Commissioner’s burden thus was not met.

At step two, the ALJ must consider the medical severity of all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, and at step three must consider whether the impairments meet or equal a listing.

Perry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-24(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ was required to consider the medical severity of all of Perry’s medically determinable impairments at step two. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... But the ALJ was required to consider whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... The ALJ, however, did not err by considering whether Perry met a listing, given that she was specifically required to do so.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires a claimant to show a severe medically determinable impairment meeting the duration requirement; at step three, disability follows when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-23(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iii)

At the second step in the sequential evaluation process a claimant must demonstrate she suffers from a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement . . . or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement . . .” ... At the third step, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments.

At step two, the ALJ determines whether an impairment significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities; at step three, the ALJ considers the claimant’s severe impairments in evaluating whether they meet or equal a listed impairment.

Wieneke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-06(c); (a)(4)(iii)(d)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the plaintiff has a severe impairment that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. ... However, the Regulations only require an ALJ to consider severe impairments at step three. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii)(d). Even the case law cited by Plaintiff pertains to a severe impairment being considered for a listing. (Dkt. No. 14 at 19). There were no severe mental health impairments found at step two to even be considered at step three.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) provides that a claimant is disabled at step three when the impairment meets or equals a Listing of Impairments.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-21(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step in the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or equals one of the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 381 Fed. Appx. 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

Lane v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-04(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

At step three, an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals a listed impairment, and satisfies the duration requirement, establishes disability without considering age, education, or work experience.

Godbey v. SSA · filed 2020-10-13(d)

At step three, if the claimant can demonstrate that she has a severe impairment which is expected to last for at least twelve months and which meets or equals a listed impairment, she will be considered disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if it does, the claimant is disabled without further inquiry.

Gonzalez v. Saul · filed 2021-01-22(a)(4)(iii), (d)

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

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, and subsection (d) places the burden of proving that showing on the claimant.

Hawkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-06(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At Step Three of the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... The claimant bears the burden to prove that her condition meets or equals a listing. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Peterson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 552 F. App’x 533, 539 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 354 (6th Cir. 2001)). ... Because Ms. Hawkins did not raise a substantial question as to whether she could meet or equal every element of any of the relevant listings, the ALJ’s cursory evaluation of those listings at Step Three was not reversible error. See Smith-Johnson, 579 F. App’x at 433. ... Further, after considering the ALJ’s discussion of the subjective complaints, medical evidence, treatment records, medical evidence, and her RFC findings at Step Four of the sequential analysis, as outlined above, the Court also finds the ALJ “made sufficient factual findings elsewhere in h[er] decision to support h[er] conclusion at step three” that Ms. Hawkins did not meet or equal Listings 1.15, 1.16, 1.18, or 11.14. See Forrest, 591 F. App’x at 366. ... For all of the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Ms. Hawkins has not met her burden to demonstrate that the ALJ’s findings at Step Three amounted to reversible error.

At step three, a claimant establishes listing-level severity for a mental impairment by showing at least two marked paragraph B restrictions or one extreme restriction.

Avila v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-25(d)

To establish listings-level severity at step three, a claimant is required to prove she has at least two “marked” restrictions or one “extreme” restriction in the paragraph B criteria.

At Step 5, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform work other than past relevant work.

BRANN v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-11-08(g)

The ALJ reached Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); Goodermote, 690 F.2d at 7.

At Step 4, the claimant must prove inability to return to past relevant work and the Commissioner must assess residual functional capacity against the demands of that work; at Step 5, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show the claimant can perform other work supported by substantial evidence.

BRIGHAM v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-11-29(f), (g)

The ALJ reached Step 4 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the claimant bears the burden of proving inability to return to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). At this step, the commissioner must make findings of the plaintiff’s RFC and the physical and mental demands of past work and determine whether the plaintiff’s RFC would permit performance of that work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); Social Security Ruling 82-62 (“SSR 82-62”), reprinted in West’s Social Security Reporting Service Rulings 1975-1982, at 813. ... In the alternative, the ALJ reached Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5; Goodermote, 690 F.2d at 7. The record must contain substantial evidence in support of the commissioner’s findings regarding the plaintiff’s RFC to perform such other work. Rosado v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 807 F.2d 292, 294 (1st Cir. 1986).

At the fifth step, once a claimant shows that he cannot perform past work, the Secretary must prove that he can perform other substantial work available in the national economy.

Crawford v. Bowen · filed 1988-05-31(f)

Because plaintiff has established that his impairments prevent him from performing his past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to prove that plaintiff still retains the residual functional capacity to perform alternative substantial work which exists in the national economy.

At step four, the claimant bears the burden of showing that he cannot perform past relevant work; the burden does not shift to the Commissioner when the claim is decided at that step.

Roberts v. Massanari · filed 2001-05-24(e)

Because this case was decided at step four of the sequential evaluation process, the burden remained with plaintiff and contrary to plaintiffs contention, the burden did not shift to the Commissioner.

At step four, a claimant must show an inability to perform past relevant work, but need not show an inability to perform every part of the former job.

Eddy v. Massanari · filed 2002-01-09(e)

While plaintiff bears the burden of showing that he cannot perform his past relevant work, he does not bear the burden of showing that he cannot perform any part of his previous job duties.

At step three of the disability evaluation, the applicant bears the burden of showing that an impairment meets a listed impairment.

Dicologero v. Saul · filed 2020-08-19(a)(4)(iii)

The applicant, however, bears the burden of proof at step three, and accordingly that is not a basis on which to reverse the ALJ’s decision.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires disability determinations to be based on all the evidence in the case record.

Schmid v. SSA · filed 2020-03-12(a)(3)

Federal regulations provide that the Social Security Administration makes disability determinations based on “all the evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3).

Section 404.1520(a) requires the agency to consider all evidence in the case record, but it does not require the ALJ to discuss evidence that is neither significant nor probative.

Maghan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-28(a)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, the Social Security Administration states it “will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Consequently, “[i]n making a determination of disability, the ALJ must develop the record and interpret the medical evidence.” Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003). “However, in interpreting the evidence and developing the record, the ALJ does not need to ‘discuss every piece of evidence.’” Id. (quoting Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998)). “[T]he ALJ is not required to discuss evidence that is neither significant nor probative.” Id. Here, Mr. Ruzic’s statement is neither significant nor probative. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in discounting Mr. Ruzic’s opinion.

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

Abraham v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-29(a)(3)

[t]he Social Security regulations provide that an ALJ “will consider all evidence in [a claimant’s] case record when [making] a determination or decision whether [the claimant is] disabled.” District courts in the Fourth Circuit have held that “all evidence” under § 404.1520(a)(3) includes medical records predating a claimant’s alleged onset date. ... The Commissioner’s post hoc argument is unavailing in light of the regulatory requirements.

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

Goins v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-13(a)(3)

In assessing disability, an ALJ must consider “all evidence” in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3), which includes objective evidence like medical signs, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(f).

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

Garbe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(c)

To be considered ‘severe’ at step two of the sequential analysis, an impairment must significantly limit an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); also Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir.1996).

At step three, the Commissioner determines whether impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment, which results in presumed disability; if the claimant cannot perform prior work, step five requires determining whether the claimant can perform other available work.

Flores v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-08(a)(4)(iii), (d), (a)(4)(v), (g), (h)

If the claimant’s impairment or impairments meet or medically equal one of the Listings, the Commissioner will presume the claimant to be disabled, and the claimant will be eligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d). ... If the claimant is not capable of performing prior work, the Commissioner must continue to step five and determine whether the claimant is capable of performing other available work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g), (h).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequence that considers work activity, impairment severity, listed impairments, past work, and the ability to adjust to other work in deciding disability.

Prickett v. Saul · filed 2020-05-12(a)(4)(i)-(v), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g)(1)

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

Section 404.1520(a)(4) establishes a five-step sequential process for deciding whether a claimant is disabled, and the analysis ends with a finding of no disability if the answer at any step is no.

Lugo v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-05(a)(4)

The regulations promulgated by the Commissioner prescribe a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant meets the Act’s definition of disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The Commissioner’s process is essentially as follows: [I]f the Commissioner determines (1) that the claimant is not working, (2) that [s]he has a ‘severe impairment,’ (3) that the impairment is not one [listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations] that conclusively requires a determination of disability, and (4) that the claimant is not capable of continuing in [her] prior type of work, the Commissioner must find [her] disabled if (5) there is not another type of work the claimant can do. Burgess, 537 F.3d at 120 (quoting Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003)); accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). If the answer at any of the previously mentioned steps is “no,” the analysis stops and the ALJ must find that the claimant does not qualify as disabled under the Act.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential process addressing substantial gainful activity, impairments, listed impairments, past work, and adjustment to other work.

Brady v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-30

To determine if a claimant has a disability, the SSA regulations mandate that an ALJ follow a five-step sequential evaluation while evaluating a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 416.920. Pursuant to the regulations, the ALJ must proceed with his or her analysis as follows: 1. Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity? If “yes” the claimant is not disabled, and the analysis ends here. If the answer is “no,” proceed to the next step of the analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. 2. Does the claimant have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that meets the duration requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509? If “no,” the claimant is not disabled. If “yes,” proceed to the next step of the analysis. Id. 3. Does the claimant have an impairment that equals a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P Appendix 1 and meets the durational requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509? If “yes” the claimant is disabled. If “no,” proceed to the next step of the analysis. Id. 4. Does the claimant have the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to return to past relevant work? If “yes” the claimant is not disabled. If no, proceed to the final step of the analysis. Id. 5. Does the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience allow him or her to make an adjustment to other work? If “no,” the claimant is disabled. If “yes,” the claimant is not disabled. Id.