20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

A severe impairment alone does not establish disability; the claimant must show functional restrictions that prevent work.

Pachilis v. Barnhart · filed 2003-05-30

First, as a matter of law, a finding that a claimant suffers from an impairment, even a severe one, does not end the inquiry. Rather, a claimant must still show that the impairment, as manifested in his particular circumstances', has resulted in sufficient restrictions in his functional capacity that preclude him from working.

An impairment that prevents a claimant from returning to past relevant work is severe.

Morrison v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-28(c)

Morrison correctly argues that an impairment which precludes return to past relevant work is a severe impairment.

At step two, an ALJ must assess whether an impairment significantly limits basic work activities and cannot find it nonsevere based on unsupported lay medical judgments.

NIEWIERSKI v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-30(c)

The ALJ’s step-two findings with respect to plaintiffs headaches, anxiety and depression are not supported by the record.

At step two, the regulation makes the severity determination a threshold inquiry and requires consideration of all impairment-related limitations after at least one severe impairment is found.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-03-19(a)(4)(ii)

But the regulations do not require the ALJ to designate each impairment as “severe” or “non-severe”; rather, the determination at step two is merely a threshold inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

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

Urena v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-05-15(c)

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Ms. Urena does not suffer from a severe physical impairment.

An impairment is severe under § 404.1520(c) only if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities; a diagnosis alone is insufficient.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(c)

A diagnosis of obesity, however, is not a severe impairment per se and it must significantly limit a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities to constitute a severe impairment.

Under § 404.1520(c), finding obesity to be a severe impairment means finding that it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Carver v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-19(c)

Here, by finding obesity a severe impairment, the ALJ necessarily found it significantly limited Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to account for severe impairments at Step 2 so their symptoms are considered at later steps.

Johnston v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-28(e)

This error is especially pronounced here given that the ALJ’s failure to properly consider Plaintiff’s severe impairments at Step 2, apparently foreclosed the ALJ from considering the symptoms of those impairments at subsequent Steps.

At step two, a claimant bears the burden of showing that an impairment significantly limits her ability to perform basic work activities.

Das v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2023-09-21(c)

Applying the foregoing principles, we hold, as the District Court did, that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Das did not carry her burden of proving that her anemia and heavy menses conditions were severe.

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

Bartlett v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-27(c)

An impairment is “severe” if it “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”

An impairment found severe at step two, including obesity, must be considered at later stages of the disability evaluation.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-28(c)

Thus, the ALJ “determined on [his] own that obesity was a severe impairment; having done so however, [he] was obligated to consider it at all stages of [his] decision.”

A severe impairment significantly limits basic work activities, and the ALJ must consider its effects when determining residual functional capacity.

Carter v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-29(c)

If, as is possible based on the court’s view of the record, Crystal now suffers “only” 10–12 headaches a month, but many still last more than 4 hours each, the ALJ was obligated to consider that when determining Crystal’s RFC, especially since he found that her headaches were severe, meaning that they “significantly limit[ her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

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

Barajas v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-04(c)

An impairment is “severe” if it “significantly limits” a claimant’s “ability to do basic work activities.”

Section 404.1520(c) defines a severe impairment as one causing more than a minimal limitation on the ability to work and places that determination at the second step of the sequential evaluation.

Christian v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-27(c)

A “severe” impairment is one that causes more than a minimal limitation on the individual’s ability to work, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c), and an ALJ determines which medically determinable severe impairments a claimant has at the second step of the sequential evaluation.

A finding that an impairment is severe under § 404.1520(c) means its symptoms significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Eshcoff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-23(c)

Stated another way, when the ALJ found CFS to be a severe impairment, she necessarily found that Eshcoff suffered from at least some of the symptoms set forth in the Ruling and that the combined effect of the symptoms “significantly limit[ed] [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) ends the disability inquiry when the claimant has no severe impairment.

Osborne v. Saul · filed 2020-09-30(c)

Given that Osborne experienced a depressive episode for only a short period of time, substantial evidence supports a finding that she did not have a severe impairment and, consequentially, not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

A diagnosis alone does not establish a severe impairment; the evidence must show a significant limit on the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

JANKOWSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-09-30(c)

The Regulations are clear that diagnoses are insufficient for establishing a severe impairment when not accompanied by evidence that these impairments “significantly limit[] your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). The record does not support a determination that Jankowski’s nonpsychiatric impairments, either individually or in concert, significantly limited her physical ability to do basic work activities during the relevant August-December 2014 period.

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

Odom v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-12-07(c)

A medical impairment (or combination of impairments) is severe when the impairment “significantly limit[s] the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work [activities].” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & (c)). ... So the court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Odom’s migraines were only a mild impairment.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits basic work activities; the ALJ did not err by omitting an unalleged condition mentioned only briefly in the record.

Guillory v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-23(c)

Pursuant to the 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). ... The ALJ’s failure to find Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder as a severe impairment was not an error when Plaintiff failed to raise it before the ALJ, and the record briefly mentions it as a condition.

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

Redmond v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-09(c)

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... .” Id. § 404.1520(c). ... Given this evidence, the ALJ could reasonably conclude that Plaintiffs knee impairment would only minimally affect her ability to work.

At step two, the ALJ must identify the claimant’s severe impairments, considered singly and in combination.

French v. Saul · filed 2020-06-04(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ is required to assess a claimant’s impairments at two stages of the sequential analysis. First, at step two, the ALJ identifies those impairments, singly and in combination, that are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, an ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s conditions and determine whether each is severe or non-severe.

Benson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-23(c)

Under step two, an ALJ must consider all conditions a claimant has and determine whether they are “severe” or “non-severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Based on the record before the Court, the ALJ reasonably determined the evidence concerning Plaintiff’s gastrointestinal condition did not demonstrate a severe impairment.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has a medically determinable severe impairment.

Leyva v. Saul · filed 2020-09-24(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has any medically determinable severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(ii).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has a medically determinable severe impairment.

Mong v. Saul · filed 2020-10-01(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has any medically determinable severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(ii), 416.920(a)(ii).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ, at step two, to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment.

Bolek v. Saul · filed 2020-11-04(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must consider whether a claimant has any severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is severe if it “significantly limits [the] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

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

Garland v. Saul · filed 2020-11-09(a)(4)(ii) and (c)

At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has one or more severe impairments that significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c); 416.920(a)(4)(ii) and (c). ... The court concludes that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s sleep apnea is not a severe impairment. ... The court concludes that the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff’s sleep apnea is non-severe. On remand, the ALJ should further address Plaintiff’s sleep apnea at step two of the sequential evaluation process and include any resulting limitations in a new RFC.

At Step Two, an impairment is not severe only when it is no more than a slight abnormality with a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; the impairments’ combined functional impact must be assessed.

Audrey P. v. Saul · filed 2021-01-08(c)

An impairment is “not severe” at Step Two if the medical evidence establishes no more than a slight abnormality that would have only a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. ... Thus, as long as the ALJ’s RFC analysis is performed in reliance on the opinions of state agency reviewing experts or treating sources who considered the functional impact of the impairment in question, there is no material error in failing to include it as a severe impairment at Step Two. ... However, with such a complex and interconnected medical picture, the ALJ’s Step Two approach – viewing each of these as an isolated condition that, so viewed, is de minimis in effect – is problematic. ... Finding this to be error, I recommend that, on remand, the ALJ should reassess his Step Two findings regarding these impairments and their impact on Plaintiff’s overall functionality, with assistance from a qualified medical professional.

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

Campbell v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-22(c)

At step two, a claimant must make a threshold showing that he or she has medically determinable impairments that significantly limit his or her ability to perform basic work activities. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 145; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step two to distinguish severe from non-severe impairments and treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; a step-two error is harmless when the impairment is considered in formulating the RFC.

(SS) Wells v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-08

At step two, the ALJ is to distinguish between those impairments that are “severe” and “non-severe.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. A “severe” impairment is one that significantly limits the physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. Id. ... A finding of “not severe” at step two harmless if the ALJ considered the impairment when formulating the claimant’s RFC. Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007). ... However, the court finds any error harmless, as the ALJ’s accounted for plaintiff’s IBS in the RFC. Lewis, 498 F.3d at 911.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has one or more severe impairments.

Seitz v. Saul · filed 2021-03-25(c)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has one or more severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). The inquiry at step two is essentially a “de minimis” screening device that allows the SSA to increase “the efficiency and reliability of the evaluation process by identifying at an early stage those claimants whose medical impairments are so slight that it is unlikely they would be found to be disabled even if their age, education, and experience were taken into account.”

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

Mounts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)

The regulations define a “severe” impairment or combination of impairments as one that significantly limits the physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Basic work activities relate to the abilities and aptitudes necessary to perform most jobs, such as the ability to perform physical functions and the mental abilities to use judgment, respond to supervisors, and deal with changes in the work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b). An impairment is considered “severe” unless “the [claimant’s] impairment(s) has no more than a minimal effect on his or her physical or mental ability(ies) to perform basic work activities.” Soc. Sec. Ruling 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, at *3 (1985); Winn v. Commr. of Soc. Sec., 615 F. App’x 315, 325 (6th Cir. 2015) (alterations in original).

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant's impairments are medically determinable and whether they are severe.

Martz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-10(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two, the ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s impairments are “medically determinable impairments” and whether such impairments are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). This is a “de minimis hurdle,” and “an impairment can be considered not severe only if it is a slight abnormality that minimally affects work ability regardless of age, education, and experience.” Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860, 862 (6th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).

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

(SS) Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-13

A “severe” impairment or combination of impairments is one that significantly limits physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. An impairment or combination of impairments should be found to be “non-severe” only when the evidence establishes merely a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522, 416.922.

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

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-08(c)

Under the second step on the five-step analysis, the ALJ must evaluate whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments which significantly restricts his or her physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

At step two, an impairment is severe if it lasts or is expected to last at least twelve months and significantly limits a claimant's ability to perform basic work activities.

Gilbertson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-12(a)(4)(ii), (c)

A severe impairment is any medically determined physical or mental impairment that lasts or is expected to last for a period of at least twelve months, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), that “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” id. § 404.1520(c). ... As a result, the ALJ did not err in not including back or neck pain as independent severe impairments.

At step two, the regulation requires an ALJ to identify medically determinable impairments that are severe, meaning they significantly limit mental or physical abilities to perform basic work activities.

Shaw v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-29(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must determine if the claimant suffers from any medically determinable impairments that are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is not considered “severe” if it does not “significantly limit” a claimant's mental or physical abilities to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); SSR 96-3p, 1996 WL 374181, at *1.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step two of the sequential evaluation to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is severe, meaning it significantly limits the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities.

Ellis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-09(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must determine if the claimant suffers from any medically determinable impairments that are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is not considered to be “severe” if it does not “significantly limit” a claimant's mental or physical abilities to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-3p.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, while a slight abnormality with only a minimal effect is non-severe.

(SS) Xiong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-13(c)

A “severe” impairment or combination of impairments is one that significantly limits physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. An impairment or combination of impairments should be found to be “non-severe” only when the evidence establishes merely a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Section 404.1520(c)'s step-two inquiry screens for severe impairments or combinations of impairments, and an error in identifying which impairments are severe is harmless when the claimant proceeds to later steps.

Young v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-14(c)

At step two of the sequential analysis, the ALJ considers whether a claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... Because step two was decided in Plaintiff’s favor, and the ALJ went on to consider steps three through five, Plaintiff could not have been prejudiced by any error in the ALJ’s determination as to which of Plaintiff's claimed impairments were severe.

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment is severe.

Reeves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-05(a)(4)(ii)

If an impairment is medically determinable, then an ALJ must determine whether it is severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ erred in not finding his alleged Bipolar Disorder to constitute a severe impairment is without merit. As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not met his burden to establish that his Bipolar Disorder is a medically determinable impairment.

At Step Two, § 404.1520(c) requires determining whether a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments is severe; severity depends on the resulting limitations and the required duration, not merely on a diagnosis or abnormal reading.

IANNACE v. SAUL · filed 2022-07-08(c)

At Step Two of the sequential analysis performed by an ALJ, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that is severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at this step. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the mere existence of a diagnosis or an abnormal reading does not equate to a severe impairment. See Phillips v. Barnhart, 91 Fed. Appx. 775, 780 (3d Cir. 2004). Rather, the question of severity relies not on the particular condition, but on the limitations stemming from that condition. See id. An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities and/or does not last or is not expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1509.

Section 404.1520(c) requires an impairment or combination of impairments to significantly limit a claimant's ability to do basic work activities to qualify as severe at step two, which is a de minimis screening inquiry.

ROSARIO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-07-13(c)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has demonstrated a “severe impairment” or “combination of impairments” that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); see Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146-47 n.5. ... If the evidence presented by the claimant presents more than a “slight abnormality,” the step-two requirement of “severe” is met, and the sequential evaluation process should continue. Id. Any doubt as to whether this showing has been made is to be resolved in favor of the claimant. Id. at 546-47. In short, “[t]he step-two inquiry is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims.” Id. at 546.

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

Lyons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-15(c)

A severe impairment or combination of impairments is one which significantly limits the physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

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

Michaud v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-25(c)

A severe impairment is “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities”. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(c); see also §404.1522 (non-severe impairments).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation and requires a step-two determination of whether the claimant has a severe impairment, with all impairments considered at later steps once at least one severe impairment is found.

Speck v. Saul · filed 2022-08-31(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At this step in the sequential evaluation process, the claimant has the burden of providing medical evidence of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings demonstrating that she has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that hast lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2005); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.909, 416.920(a)(4)(ii). 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). ... When the ALJ determines that a claimant has at least one severe impairment, she must consider all impairments, including non-severe impairments, at subsequent steps of the sequential evaluation. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290.

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits basic work activities, and an error in identifying a severe impairment is harmless if the ALJ considers all impairments in the RFC analysis.

Usanovic v. Saul · filed 2022-09-08(c)

As noted above, at step two of the analysis, the ALJ determines whether a claimant has any “severe impairments,” i.e., impairments that “significantly limit [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(c). ... Second, even if the ALJ had erred by failing to designate one of the above impairments as severe, this error would not require reversal. The step two analysis is “merely a threshold requirement”: if the ALJ finds at least one severe impairment, the evaluation proceeds. Hickman v. Apfel, 187 F.3d 683, 688 (7th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, “any error that an ALJ commits at step two is harmless as long as the ALJ goes on to consider the combined impact of a claimant’s severe and non-severe impairments” in the RFC analysis. Loftis v. Berryhill, No. 15 C 10453, 2017 WL 2311214, at n.1 (N.D.Ill. May 26, 2017) (citing Curvin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 645, 648-49 (7th Cir. 2015)).

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

Hector G. v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-21(c)

An impairment is severe only if it “significantly limit[s]” a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... First, the record supports that the ALJ did consider the combined effect of Plaintiff’s physical impairments. At Step 2, the ALJ confirmed that he had “considered the combined effects of all impairments, severe and non-severe, in determining the claimant’s [RFC].” (Tr. 15). ... In short, the ALJ properly based his Step 2 and RFC findings on the opinions of the state agency physicians and his reasonable interpretation of the evidence of record. The ALJ also reasonably considered Plaintiff’s impairments for the relevant period starting with the alleged disability onset date. Since his findings are adequately supported by the record, they must be affirmed. Plaintiff has shown no grounds for reversal of the ALJ’s decision.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires a claimant to demonstrate at least one severe impairment at step two, after which the ALJ proceeds to step three.

White v. Saul · filed 2022-09-26(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the five-step sequence, the claimant must demonstrate that he suffers from at least one severe impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant makes such a showing, then the ALJ proceeds to step three of the process. Id. Unlike in Mr. White’s cited case, the ALJ found multiple severe impairments. Compare R.14 (listing multiple severe impairments), with Tebyanian, 2015 WL 4475762, at *4 (finding no severe impairments, which ended the inquiry). The ALJ thus proceeded to step three of the analysis. R.14-15. Yet Mr. White does not attempt to show that classifying his chronic pain as a severe impairment would have changed the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion that Mr. White is not disabled. Cf. Keel v. Saul, 986 F.3d 551, 556-57 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding that ALJ’s failure to apply the correct standard for severe impairment does not automatically warrant reversal). Mr. White “thus fails to overcome the harmless error rule.” Id.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ at step two to determine whether a claimant has a severe impairment that meets the duration requirement, with severity meaning a significant limitation on basic work activities.

Thompson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-28(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At Step Two of the disability analysis, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that is “severe” and meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A “severe” impairment significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. Id. at §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

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

Rivera v. Saul · filed 2022-09-29(c)

At Step 2, the plaintiff has the burden to prove that she has a medically determinable severe impairment or combination of medically determinable impairments. Ramos v. Barnhart, 60 F. App'x 334, 335 (1st Cir. 2003) (per curiam). An impairment is severe only if it “significantly limit[s]” a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); 416.920(c). See also Barrientos v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 820 F.2d 1, 1 (1st Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Step Two effectively screens out applicants “whose impairments are so minimal that, as a matter of common sense, they are clearly not disabled from gainful employment.” McDonald v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 795 F.2d 1118, 1123 (1st Cir. 1986). ... Review of the record reveals that the ALJ’s step-two finding that Plaintiff’s mental impairments were not severe is indeed supported by substantial evidence. In finding that Plaintiff’s mental impairments were not severe, the ALJ followed the process for evaluating mental impairments as set forth in the regulations and found that Plaintiff only had “mild” limitation in each of the four broad functional areas.

At Step Two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires a claimant to have a severe medically determinable impairment, or a severe combination of impairments, that meets the duration requirement to proceed with the disability evaluation.

EBY-MANESCU v. SAUL · filed 2022-10-07(a)(4)(ii)

In order for the analysis to proceed beyond Step Two – that is, to avoid a finding of “not disabled” at that stage – the Regulations require the claimant to “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[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, the regulation requires an ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments meeting the twelve-month duration requirement; if the claimant has one, the sequential evaluation continues.

Fiutko v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-23(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ considers whether the claimant has at least one severe impairment or combination of impairments that meets the twelve-month durational requirement for establishing disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... If the claimant does not have any severe impairments, then the claimant is not disabled, and the sequential evaluation ends.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits basic work activities, but failure to designate an additional impairment as severe is not reversible error when the ALJ considers it in the later RFC analysis.

Bennett v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-15(c)

Once an ALJ has determined a claimant has a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must then determine whether that impairment is “severe” for purposes of Social Security regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... When the ALJ considers all of a claimant’s impairments in the remaining steps of the disability determination, the failure to find additional severe impairments at Step Two does “not constitute reversible error.” ... While the ALJ failed to mention Bennett’s CTS at Step Two, he considered Bennett’s CTS and its impacts in the RFC analysis, limiting her to frequent handling and fingering. (Id. at 32-36.) As the ALJ considered Bennett’s impairments, severe and non-severe, in the RFC analysis, there is no reversible error.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to show that medically determinable impairments significantly limit the ability to perform basic work activities, and the ALJ must evaluate supported headache-related functional allegations.

Stalker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-12(c)

At step two, a claimant must make a threshold showing that her medically determinable impairments significantly limit her ability to perform basic work activities. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 145 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... The ALJ erred in failing to provide any evaluation of Plaintiff’s headache-related functional allegations, even if the ALJ’s failure to reference Plaintiff’s headaches at step two could be considered harmless. Cf. Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding a step-two error harmless because the ALJ considered the limitations caused by the omitted impairment when assessing the plaintiff’s RFC). Accordingly, on remand, the ALJ should reconsider the evidence related to Plaintiff’s headaches at step two and at any subsequent steps in the decision.

At step two, an impairment is severe only when it significantly limits a claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

(SS) Scoble v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-06(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At Step Two, the ALJ was required to determine whether plaintiff had any “severe” impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (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).

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

Tribbett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-11(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant “has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the disability analysis to proceed through step two, where the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits basic work activities.

Chambers v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-08(a)(4)(ii)

2. Is the claimant’s impairment “severe” under the Commissioner’s regulations? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). 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. §§ 404.1521(a), 416.921(a). ... As conceded by the Commissioner, the ALJ found that fibromyalgia and ME/CFS were not medically determinable, and yet there are medical evaluations and diagnoses in the record to support them, including records otherwise relied on by the ALJ. ... The ALJ committed harmful errors in rejecting Plaintiff’s alleged fibromyalgia, ME/CFS, and depression at step two, by not offering specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff’s pain testimony, in evaluating the medical evidence, and in ignoring the lay witness testimony.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment or combination of impairments as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities and persists for at least twelve consecutive months.

Leverett v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-02-16(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” if it “significantly limits [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities”5 and persists for at least twelve consecutive months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c), 404.1505(a), and 416.905(a).

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits basic work activities; if no impairment or combination is severe, the analysis ends, but if at least one is severe, the evaluation continues without requiring the ALJ to identify every severe impairment.

Pavao v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-12(a)(4)(ii), (c)

In the first place, whether the ALJ characterized Plaintiff’s overactive bladder as a severe or non-severe impairment is irrelevant. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had at least one severe impairment (her depressive disorder), and that finding was sufficient to require the ALJ to analyze the limitations associated with each of Plaintiff’s impairments, regardless of their severity. During the disability determination, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s medically determinable impairments are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c). ... If the ALJ determines that the claimant has no severe impairments (nor a combination of impairments that is severe), his analysis ends; the claimant is found to be not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant has at least one severe impairment (or a combination of impairments that is severe), the analysis of whether the claimant is disabled continues. Id. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit has described this step as a “filter” to cull out claims where the claimant has no substantial impairments and, therefore, is therefore not disabled under the Social Security Act. ... Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly held that there is no need for an ALJ to identify every severe impairment at step two. ... To state it differently, to the extent the ALJ finds that a claimant has any severe impairment, it is irrelevant that the ALJ found the claimant’s other impairments to be non-severe. The pertinent inquiry is not whether the non-severe impairments should have been classified as severe, but instead whether the ALJ considered limitations from those impairments at the later steps of the sequential analysis, in determining Plaintiff’s RFC.

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

Hunter v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-08(c)

An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... The Court agrees with Defendant (Def. Br. at 8) that the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s trigger finger was a non-severe impairment is clearly supported by substantial evidence. ... As for Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome, the Court again agrees with Defendant (Def. Br. at 8–9) that the medical record clearly supports the ALJ’s conclusion that it was a non-severe impairment. ... In sum, substantial evidence clearly supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s trigger finger and carpal tunnel syndrome impairments caused “no more than a minimal effect on [Plaintiff’s] ability to work.” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments, and treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits the ability to do basic work activities.

Olson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-18(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the five-step sequential inquiry, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is severe if it “significantly limits” an individual’s “ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520's sequential evaluation requires step two to determine whether a claimant has a severe impairment, meaning an impairment that significantly limits the ability to do basic work activities.

Sullens v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-03(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, the ALJ determines "whether the claimant had severe impairments during the period for which he seeks disability benefits." Glanden v. Kijakazi, 86 F.4th 838, 843 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii)). An impairment is severe "if it ‘significantly limits’ an individual’s ‘ability to do basic work activities.’" Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)).

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

(SS) Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-17(c)

The inquiry at step two is a de minimus screening for severe impairments “to dispose of groundless claims.” ... For an impairment to be “severe,” it must significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, or the “abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment is severe, meaning that it significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Kiehl v. Bisignano · filed 2025-05-28(c)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities; without a severe impairment, the claimant is not disabled.

Ratcliff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-02(c)

A “severe impairment” is one that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the claimant does not suffer from a severe impairment, the claimant is not disabled. See id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... The ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s degenerative disc disease does not rise to the level of a severe impairment is thus supported by substantial evidence, irrespective of whether it was informed by medical expert testimony.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, and permits a finding of not disabled when no impairment or combination does so.

Kipp · filed 2025-10-30(c)

The ALJ will find 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). ... The ALJ applied the appropriate standard in finding Paula K.’s mental impairments nonsevere at step two of the sequential evaluation as the ALJ concluded her mental impairments did not “cause more than minimal limitation in [Paula K.’s] ability to perform basic mental work activities. . . .” Filing 7-2 at 22 (AR 21); see Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1042, 1044 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirming the ALJ’s finding of nonsevere mental impairments and a combination of severe physical impairments at step two of the sequential evaluation); see also Caviness v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 603, 605 (8th Cir. 2001) (“The sequential evaluation process may be terminated at step two only when the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments would have no more than a minimal impact on her ability to work.” (citing Nguyen v. Chater, 75 F.3d 429, 430–431 (8th Cir. 1996))).

At step two, the ALJ must decide whether a claimant has a severe impairment, and a finding of at least one severe impairment moves the evaluation to step three.

Zacharof-Wagner · filed 2026-01-20(c), (d)

Step two of the sequential disability analysis is a threshold determination meant to screen out weak claims. ... The ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); 416.920(c). If the claimant has at least one severe impairment, the evaluation proceeds to step three. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d); 416.920(d). A claimant generally cannot be prejudiced by the ALJ’s failure to consider an impairment as severe at step two, as long as the ALJ finds the claimant has at least one severe impairment and still addresses the non-severe impairment when considering the claimant’s RFC. ... “The RFC therefore should be exactly the same regardless of whether certain impairments are considered ‘severe’ or not.”

At Step Two, § 404.1520 requires deciding whether an impairment is severe; once any impairment is severe, the claim proceeds, but the ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s limitations at later steps.

Kang · filed 2026-02-10(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, an ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... In other words, a severe impairment is an impairment or combination thereof that significantly limits a claimant’s abilities to perform basic work activities. See SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, *4 n.1; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1522(a), 416.920(c), 416.922(a). ... If any impairment or combination of impairments qualifies as “severe,” step two is satisfied and the claim advances to step three. Gray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 550 F. App’x 850, 852 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1987)). “[B]eyond the second step, the ALJ must consider the entirety of the claimant’s limitations, regardless of whether they are individually disabling.” Griffin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 560 F. App’x 837, 841-842 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted).

At step two, finding one severe impairment permits the evaluation to continue; failing to identify additional severe impairments is harmless when their combined effect is considered at later steps.

Boler v. Berryhill · filed 2018-06-27(a)(4)(ii)

Accordingly, because the ALJ determined at step two that Plaintiff suffered from the severe impairment of obesity and then proceeded beyond step two in the sequential analysis to consider the combined effect of all the claimant’s impairments, any error in failing to find that Plaintiff suffered from other severe impairments is rendered harmless.

At step two, an ALJ may find a mental impairment nonsevere when it causes no functional limitation in the four areas of mental functioning.

SAPP v. SAUL · filed 2020-04-01(c)

In his decision, the ALJ considered the four, broad areas of mental functioning established by the regulations. R. 362. In doing so, he found that for all four, Plaintiff had no functional limitation. Id. Thus, the ALJ decided that Plaintiff’s mental impairments were not severe. Id. This is consistent with the governing regulation, which states that, if an ALJ finds that a claimant has no or mild limitation in all four areas of mental functioning, the claimant’s mental impairment may be found non-severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1). The ALJ properly applied the governing regulation; hence, there is no basis to find that he erred.

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

Keeney v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-08(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. ... This is not a weak claim that was properly screened out at step two.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to identify a severe impairment at step two and to consider all impairments together at step three, whether or not each was found severe.

Heatly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-06-11(c)

Nothing requires that the ALJ must identify, at step two, all of the impairments that should be considered severe. Instead, at step three, the ALJ is required to demonstrate that it has considered all of the claimant’s impairments, whether severe or not, in combination.

An error excluding an impairment at step two is harmless when the ALJ finds another severe impairment and considers all impairments at step four.

Conde v. Colvin, SSA · filed 2016-01-25(a)(4)(ii)

If an ALJ erroneously excludes an impairment at Step Two, that omission is harmless as long as the ALJ found at least one severe impairment and considered all impairments at Step Four when assessing the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to identify severe impairments at step two and consider their limiting effects when assessing residual functional capacity.

Gutierrez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-29(c)

To be severe, an impairment must significantly limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1522(a), 416.920(c), 416.922(a). ... On remand, the ALJ shall include fibromyalgia as a severe impairment at step two and then consider the limiting effects arising from this condition in determining Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.

At step two, finding any severe impairment is sufficient; the ALJ need not separately identify every severe impairment if the decision considers all medically determinable impairments at later steps.

Crenshaw v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-28(a)(4)(ii)

Step two of the sequential evaluation process acts as a filter to eliminate claims involving no substantial impairment, and the finding of any severe impairment is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of step two.

When step two is resolved in the claimant’s favor, omitting another impairment from the list of severe impairments is not reversible error; the RFC assessment must still account for limitations from all impairments.

Burrell v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-28(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ resolved step two in Plaintiff’s favor and found that Plaintiff had severe impairments. Although the ALJ did not include any gastrointestinal disorders among Plaintiff’s severe impairments, the ALJ’s RFC finding should have incorporated Plaintiff’s limitations from all of Plaintiff’s impairments, severe and non-severe.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a step-two determination of whether the claimant has a severe impairment; omitting an impairment at that step is harmless if the ALJ considers its limitations at later steps.

(SS) Carlson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-29(c)

At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation, the ALJ is required to determine whether a plaintiff has a “severe” medical impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... The Court therefore finds that any error in failing to include anxiety as a severe impairment at step two is harmless because the ALJ considered any limitations posed by her anxiety at subsequent steps of the sequential evaluation.

At step two, identifying one severe impairment satisfies the severe impairment requirement; failure to classify additional impairments as severe does not itself require reversal.

Prevatte v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-03-07(a)(4)(ii)

Accordingly, the ALJ satisfied step two of the sequential disability analysis, and Ms. Prevatte’s argument that the ALJ committed reversable error by failing to classify her neuropathy and headaches as severe impairments fails.

At step two, a claimant must show that an impairment significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities to establish that it is severe.

Hightower v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-03-21(c)

Thus, the Court finds, as the ALJ discussed, the relevant medical records do not indicate that Hightower’s PTSD was a severe impairment.

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

Winter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-28(c)

This finding means that Ms. W’s obesity “significantly limits [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); see also SSR 19-2.

At step two, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment.

Walkup v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-29(a)(4)(ii)

Step two of an ALJ’s five-step process requires him to consider whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

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

Yonaka v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-29(c)

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

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

McLaughlin · filed 2026-05-27(c)

To summarize: the record contains no objective medical evidence sufficient to overturn the Commissioner’s determination that McLaughlin’s impairments did not significantly limit his ability to perform basic work activities before March 31, 2020.

At step two, an ALJ need not consider a condition when the record contains no evidence that treating or examining sources considered it to significantly affect basic work activities.

Carson-Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c)

Nor is the ALJ required to consider conditions for which the record is devoid of any evidence that Plaintiff’s treating or examining sources considered such conditions to have a significant impact on Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work activities.

At step two, once an ALJ finds a severe impairment and continues the evaluation, classifying another impairment as nonsevere does not warrant reversal.

Marrow v. Saul · filed 2020-05-11(a)(4)(ii)

Because the ALJ found other impairments severe and proceeded with the sequential evaluation, he did not commit reversible error by categorizing Plaintiff’s PTSD and depression as nonsevere.

At step two, a claimant without a severe impairment meeting the duration requirement is not disabled.

Brasted v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-24(a)(4)(ii)

If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments meeting the durational requirement of twelve months, then the claimant is not disabled. ... Plaintiff raises a single allegation of error on appeal: the ALJ erred in finding none of Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments are “severe” within the meaning of the Act. The Court disagrees. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, a severe impairment must significantly limit a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

OLIVERI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-09-11(c)

At step two, an ALJ determines whether the plaintiff has a “severe impairment” or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... The ALJ therefore correctly found that the evidence failed to establish Plaintiff’s asthmatic bronchitis as a severe impairment on or prior to her date last insured.

At step two, finding one severe impairment is sufficient; failing to classify another impairment as severe is harmless if the ALJ considers all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Griffin v. Saul · filed 2020-10-01(c)

Accordingly, the Court finds that, even if the ALJ erred by finding that her carpal tunnel syndrome was a non-severe impairment at step two, any such error was harmless because the ALJ considered all impairments in formulating her RFC.

Section 404.1520 requires disability evaluation through a sequential process, including deciding at step two whether an impairment is severe.

Archie v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-08(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe, medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that meets the durational requirement. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). In assessing severity, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits her ability to do basic work activities.

At step two, an ALJ’s failure to identify an impairment as severe is harmless when the ALJ proceeds through the remaining steps and considers its limitations.

Burgess v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-22(a)(4)(ii)

As the ALJ could properly consider the limitations imposed by Plaintiff’s medically determinable severe and non-severe impairments in determining whether he retained sufficient RFC to allow him to allow him to perform substantial gainful activity, the ALJ’s purported failure to find the myofascial pain syndrome is “severe” could not constitute reversible error (Tr. 13-26).

At step two, finding one severe impairment is enough to continue the disability evaluation; the ALJ need not identify every severe impairment.

Johnson v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-30(a)(4)(ii)

Therefore, “[n]othing requires that the ALJ must identify, at step two, all of the impairments that should be considered severe.” Heatly v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 382 F. App'x 823, 825 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (unpublished).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has any medically determinable severe impairments.

Trimble v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-01(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has any medically determinable severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether a claimant has produced evidence of one or more medically determinable impairments and whether those impairments are severe.

Gablenz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-12(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether a claimant has produced evidence of one or more Medically Determinable Impairments (MDIs) and whether those impairments are severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation and treats an impairment as severe at step two when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Diaz v. Saul · filed 2021-03-26(a), (c)

At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has a medically determinable impairment or a combination of impairments that is severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). An impairment or combination of impairments 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), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520 requires a severe impairment for disability and, once one exists, requires the ALJ to assess the claimant's remaining work capacity while considering limitations from all impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Bishop v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-06(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iv)

“Before an ALJ can find that an individual is disabled, the ALJ must find that the individual has a ‘severe’ impairment.” Kirkland v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 528 F. App’x 425, 427 (6th Cir. 2013); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). “If the individual has at least one severe impairment, the ALJ will then assess how much work the individual can still do.” Id., see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). When making that assessment, “the ALJ must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of [the] individual’s impairments, even those that are not severe.”

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to consider all evidence and to evaluate at Step Three whether the claimant’s conditions, individually and in combination, meet or equal a listed impairment.

Mahler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-21(a)(3), (a)(4)

Third, the ALJ has the independent duty to weigh and consider “all evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). ... Step Three necessitates close evaluation given its dispositive nature 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(2019). It requires two independent conclusions—i.e., whether a claimant’s conditions, individually and then in combination, (1) meet or (2) equal a listed impairment.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record when deciding disability and discuss significantly probative evidence the ALJ rejects.

Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-26(a)(3)

As for his picking-and-choosing argument, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) requires the ALJ to “consider all evidence in [the] case record when [he] makes a determination or decision whether [claimant is] disabled,” and the ALJ must “discuss the significantly probative evidence he rejects.”

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

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(a)(3)

The Social Security regulations require ALJs to “consider all evidence in [the] record when [they] make a determination or decision whether [a claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). ... The ALJ’s failure to address this evidence was error.

Section 404.1520(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record, while requiring discussion of uncontroverted and significantly probative evidence but not every item.

Cochran v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(a)(3)

The Social Security regulations require the ALJ to “consider all evidence in [the] case record when [he] make[s] a determination or decision whether [claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). Although the record must demonstrate that the ALJ considered all of the evidence, he is not required to discuss every piece of evidence. ... Rather, in addition to discussing the evidence supporting his decision, the ALJ also must discuss the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon, as well as significantly probative evidence he rejects.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that a claimant who can perform other work can do jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including through vocational-expert testimony based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Robinson v. Saul · filed 2020-08-28(a)(4)(v), (g)

At step five, if (considering residual-functional capacity, age, education, and work experience) the claimant is able to do other work, the Commissioner must establish that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can do. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). The Commissioner may sustain its burden at step five by posing hypothetical questions to a vocational expert that are based on a claimant’s residual functional capacity. The vocational expert may give evidence about jobs that a hypothetical employee with the same residual functional capacity as the claimant would be able to perform. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

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

Vader v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-30(g)(1)

The key issue, then, is whether the Court should remand for further administrative proceedings as to step five, where the Commissioner bears the burden of proving that Plaintiff can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, taking into account Plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c)(1)-(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1). Here, a review of the record demonstrates that this remaining issue has already been addressed by the testimony of the vocational expert, rendering further proceedings unnecessary.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) makes the claimant’s ability to adjust to other work existing in significant numbers the step-five disability test, and the court held that approximately 7,100 national jobs was not a significant number here.

Feltner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-26(a)(4)(v)

Based on the caselaw on what signifies a “significant number of jobs,” this Court finds that the Appeals Council erred by finding that the job of dealer account investigator, which has approximately 7,100 jobs nationally, represented a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps, with age, education, and work experience considered only if the fifth stage is reached.

Hughes v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-10-13

The Commissioner’s regulations require him to apply a five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since filing his claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy given his age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Only if the final stage is reached does the fact finder consider the Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his residual functional capacity. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Higgins v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520(a)(iv)(5) requires an ALJ determining whether a claimant is disabled to consider the claimant’s age, education, and work experience.

VAN HOUTEN v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2022-11-22(a)(iv)(5)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, however, an ALJ must consider the claimant’s “age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(iv)(5), 416.920(a)(iv)(5).

Section 404.1520(e) permits a claimant’s activities to be considered as evidence that alleged pain and other symptoms are less limiting than claimed, although the activities are not dispositive.

Muehlendyck v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(e)

Moreover, although not dispositive, a claimant’s activities may show that the plaintiff’s pain and other symptoms are not as limiting as alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); SSR 16-3p; Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, covering substantial gainful activity, impairment severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and the ability to perform other work.

Williams v. SSA (Social Security Administration) · filed 2020-09-29(a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iii), (a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

The ALJ is required to employ a five-step sequential evaluation in every Social Security disability claim analysis to determine a claimant’s eligibility. The Court examines this five-step process on appeal to determine whether the correct legal standards were applied in this case, and whether Defendant’s resulting decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... In reviewing the record, the ALJ clearly applied the correct legal standard. As noted above, the ALJ addressed, as appropriate, each part of the five-step sequential evaluation analysis prior to reaching a decision. See supra Part III. The ALJ summarized the applicable standard in detail and then applied that standard faithfully to the facts of the case. (R. at 15-28.) Accordingly, the ALJ made no clear error of law in this regard.

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

Sturgill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-23

When considering a claimant’s eligibility for disability benefits, an ALJ must apply the standard five-step analysis: (1) is the claimant currently employed; (2) is the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments severe; (3) do her impairments meet or exceed any of the specific impairments listed that the Secretary acknowledges to be so severe as to be conclusively disabling; (4) if the impairment has not been listed by the Secretary as conclusively disabling, given the claimant’s residual functional capacity, is the claimant unable to perform her former occupation; (5) is the claimant unable to perform any other work in the national economy given her age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Young v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 957 F.2d 386, 389 (7th Cir. 1992). The claimant bears the burden of proof until step five, where the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that the claimant can perform other work in the economy. See id.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence addressing work activity, severity, listed impairments, past work, and other work in the national economy.

Berry v. Saul · filed 2020-10-29(a)(4)

In evaluating a disability claim, the Commissioner uses a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Pursuant to this five-step process, the Commissioner asks, in sequence, whether the claimant: (1) worked during the alleged period of disability; (2) had a severe impairment; (3) had an impairment that met or equaled the severity of a listed impairment; (4) could return to his past relevant work; and (5) if not, could perform any other work in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability, and the step-three determination must adequately address whether the claimant's impairments, individually or in combination, meet or equal a listed impairment.

VILLANUEVA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-10-30(a)(4)

If a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is found to be one of the listed impairments, or is found to be the medical equivalent of a listed impairment, a claimant is automatically deemed disabled at step three in the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... Here, the Court must remand for further analysis regarding the combined effect of Plaintiff's impairments.

Section 404.1520(a) requires an ALJ to determine disability through a five-step sequential evaluation process.

Newton v. Saul · filed 2020-11-24(a)

In determining whether the claimant is disabled, the ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must sequentially determine: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the claimant is able to do his or her past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is able to do any other work, considering his or her age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

Section 404.1520(a) requires a five-step disability determination, including assessing the severity of an impairment at step two and the claimant’s ability to perform past or other work at steps four and five.

Valentine v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-30(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iv)–(v)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant bears the burden of proof on the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. ... At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental impairment based on the four areas of mental functioning set out in the disability regulations. These areas are 1) understanding, remembering, or applying information; 2) interacting with others; 3) concentrating, persisting or maintaining pace; and 4) adapting or managing oneself. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), Subpart P, Appendix 1. ... Step four asks whether the claimant is capable of performing past relevant work and step five asks whether the claimant can perform any work at all. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv)–(v). ... Therefore, Plaintiff has met the requirements of all five steps.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) directs the Commissioner to compare a severe impairment with the Listings, while subsection (a)(4)(iv) directs consideration of whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits past relevant work.

Pearson v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2020-12-02(a)(4)(iii), (a)(4)(iv)

There is a five-step analysis to determine whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... At step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s severe impairment “to a list of impairments presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work” (“the Listings”). Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 428 (3d Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant’s impairment is not listed, the Commissioner considers at step four whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can return to his past relevant work, he is not disabled. Id. ... Substantial evidence thus supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Pearson’s impairment did not meet or equal a listing at step three. ... In conclusion, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Pearson’s RFC allowed him to perform his past work as an attorney.

At the fifth step of the disability analysis, once a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the ALJ must show that the claimant can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

PENROSE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-12-23(b)

Once it has been determined that a claimant is not capable of performing her past relevant work, the burden shifts to the ALJ to show that the claimant’s RFC permits the claimant to perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b)-(f).

Section 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ to consider the cumulative effect of all of a claimant’s impairments when determining whether the claimant can perform work and is not disabled.

STOWERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-12-22(f)

The ALJ must analyze the cumulative effect of all the claimant's impairments in determining whether the claimant is capable of performing work and not disabled.

Section 404.1520 uses a five-step sequential inquiry and does not treat inability to perform past work alone as proof of disability; the claimant must also be unable to perform other work in the national economy.

Farinas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-03

To evaluate whether an applicant is qualified under the Act, the court undertakes a five-step inquiry, namely whether (1) the applicant is presently working in a substantially gainful activity; (2) the subject impairment is severe; (3) the impairment “meets or equals” one of the list of impairments itemized in the Social Security Regulations; (4) the applicant is able to perform any work that she has not previously performed; and (5) the applicant is able to perform any other work, where, if so, the Commissioner bears the burden of proving “that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the [applicant] can do.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1999). Importantly, the court’s inquiry ends where an applicant is found to be “disabled” or “not disabled” at any step in the analysis. Id. ... As a foundational matter, Dr. Levine’s statement regarding Plaintiff’s inability to carry out her “regular work activities” does not de facto make Plaintiff totally or partially disabled such that Plaintiff may be precluded from maintaining any employment available in the national economy. See generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 requires the SSA to evaluate disability claims through five sequential steps: substantial gainful activity, severity and duration, the listings, past relevant work after assessing residual functional capacity, and other available work considering the claimant’s RFC and vocational factors.

Rodriguez v. Saul · filed 2021-02-05(a)(4)(i)-(v)

The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) applies a five-step analysis to disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520. The SSA first considers whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity during the claimed period of disability. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(i). It then determines at step two whether the claimant’s physical or mental impairment is severe and meets the twelve-month duration requirement noted above. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(ii). At step three, the SSA compares the impairment or combination of impairments found at step two to a list of impairments identified in the regulations (“the listings”). The specific criteria that must be met to satisfy a listing are described in Appendix 1 of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. If the claimant’s impairments meet or “medically equal” a listing, the individual is considered to be disabled, and the analysis concludes. If the listing is not met, the analysis proceeds to step four. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Before addressing the fourth step, the SSA must assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which defines his or her exertional and non-exertional capacity to work. The SSA then determines at step four whether the claimant is able to engage in any of his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can do so, he is not disabled. Id. If the claimant cannot undertake her past work, the SSA proceeds to step five to determine whether a substantial number of jobs exist that the claimant can perform in light of her RFC, age, education, and work experience. An individual is not disabled if he or she can do work that is available under this standard. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(a) requires a five-step sequential process for evaluating whether a claimant is disabled, including consideration of substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

RUTTER v. BERRYHILL · filed 2021-02-08(a)

The Commissioner has provided the ALJ with a five-step sequential analysis to use when evaluating the disabled status of each claimant. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a). The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if the claimant has a severe impairment, whether it meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P., appx. 1; (4) if the impairment does not satisfy one of the impairment listings, whether the claimant’s impairments prevent him from performing his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is incapable of performing his past relevant work, whether he can perform any other work which exists in the national economy, in light of his age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential process addressing work activity, impairment severity, the Listings, past relevant work, and other work.

SMITH v. SAUL · filed 2021-02-10(a)(4)

The Commissioner uses a five-step process to evaluate disability claims.” Hancock, 667 F.3d at 472 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4); 416.920(a)(4)). Under this process, the Commissioner asks, in sequence, whether the claimant: (1) worked during the alleged period of disability; (2) had a severe impairment; (3) had an impairment that met or equaled the requirements of a listed impairment; (4) could return to her past relevant work; and (6) if not, could perform any other work in the national economy. Id.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step disability analysis and stop reviewing a claim once disability or non-disability is found at any step.

Burke v. Saul · filed 2021-02-22(a)(4)(iii), (g)

The Commissioner must perform a five-step analysis to determine whether a person is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427–28 (3d Cir. 1999). If the Commissioner makes a finding of disability or non-disability at any point in the sequential process, the Commissioner will not review the claim further. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process addressing substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

SACCO v. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-25

The Act establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluation by the ALJ to determine whether an individual is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. First, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has shown that he or she is not currently engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” Id. at § 404.1520(a); see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146-47 n.5 (1987). If a claimant is presently engaged in any form of substantial gainful activity, he or she is automatically denied disability benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b); see also Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 140. Second, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has demonstrated a “severe impairment” or “combination of impairments” that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); see Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146-47 n.5. ... Third, if the impairment is found to be severe, the ALJ then determines whether the impairment meets or is equal to the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1 (the “Impairment List”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant demonstrates that his or her impairments are equal in severity to, or meet those on the Impairment List, the claimant has satisfied his or her burden of proof and is automatically entitled to benefits. See id. at § 404.1520(d). ... If the claimant is not conclusively disabled under the criteria set forth in the Impairment List, step three is not satisfied, and the claimant must prove at step four that he or she has not retained the RFC to perform his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141. If the claimant is able to perform previous work, the claimant is determined to not be disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f); Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141-42. ... Finally, if it is determined that the claimant is no longer able to perform his or her previous work, the burden of production then shifts to the Commissioner to show, at step five, that the “claimant is able to perform work available in the national economy.” Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146-47 n.5; Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428. This step requires the ALJ to consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequential evaluation of disability, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner bearing it at the final step.

Richardson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-25(c), (d), (e), (a)(4)

The applicable regulations set forth a five-step analysis the Commissioner must follow in determining eligibility for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. ... The burden of proof is on the applicant for the first four steps, with the Commissioner bearing the burden of proof on the final step. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) and 416.920(a)(4); Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008). ... All five steps need not be addressed because if the claimant fails to meet the criteria at either of the first two steps, the inquiry ceases and the claimant is not eligible for disability benefits, but if the claimant meets the criteria for the third or fourth step, the inquiry ceases with the claimant eligible for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, ending in a finding of disability only if the claimant cannot perform other available work.

Kennedy v. Berryhill · filed 2021-03-05(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. ... 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 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner at step five; meeting a listed impairment at step three establishes disability and ends the inquiry.

(SS) Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(d), (f)

An ALJ determines eligibility for Social Security benefits in a five-step sequential evaluation process, asking: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a medical impairment (or combination of impairments) that qualifies as severe; (3) whether any of the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal the severity of one of the impairments listed in the regulations; (4) whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant can perform other specified types of work. See Barnes v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 702, 704 n.3 (9th Cir. 2018); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The burden of proof is on the claimant during the first four steps of the inquiry but shifts to the Commissioner at the fifth step. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 949, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2001). ... The regulations’ “Listing of Impairments” identifies impairments in fifteen categories of body systems that are considered severe enough to preclude employment. See Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 183-84 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If the requirements of a condition’s listing are met, then a claimant has established disability at step three. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Thus, if a claimant meets the criteria for a listing, the ALJ need not determine the claimant’s RFC and does not proceed to steps four and five. See id.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be decided through a sequential five-step process, ending the analysis when the claimant is found disabled or not disabled.

Howen v. Saul · filed 2021-03-25(a)(4)

The Commissioner uses a sequential, five-step approach to determine whether the claimant is disabled. ... A finding that the claimant is disabled or not disabled at any point in the five-step review terminates the analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (2017).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential disability evaluation: the claimant bears the burden through step four, and at step five the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work or the claimant is disabled.

Bunn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-29(b), (g), (a)(4)(v)

In determining whether a claimant suffers a disability, the Commissioner, through an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), works through a five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The burden rests upon the claimant at the first four steps of this five-step process; the Commissioner sustains the burden at step five, if the evaluation proceeds that far. ... If the claimant succeeds at the preceding step, the fifth step shifts the burden to the Commissioner to provide evidence, considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education and past work experience, that the claimant is capable of performing other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). If the claimant can perform other work, the evaluator will not find the claimant disabled. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). If the claimant cannot perform other work, the evaluator will find the claimant disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(g).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the ALJ to determine disability through a five-step sequential evaluation, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and adjust to other work.

Czadzeck v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(a)(4)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ applies a five-step sequential test. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). At step one, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is currently working at the level of substantial gainful activity. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). □□ not, at step two she asks whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If so, at step three she determines whether any of those impairments qualify as conclusively disabling under agency Listings. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four, determining whether the claimant can, given her residual functional capacity (“RFC”), perform her past relevant work, id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), either as she actually performed it or as it is generally performed in the national economy, id. § 404.1560(b)(2). RFC represents the most a person can still do despite the physical and mental limitations caused by her impairments and any related symptoms. Id. § 404.1545(a)(1). If the claimant cannot perform past work, the ALJ determines at step five whether she can, given her RFC, age, education, and work experience, make an adjustment to other work. If so, she is not disabled. If not, she is disabled. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential process to determine whether a claimant is disabled.

Farinas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(a)(4)

ALJs determine such “disability” pursuant to a five-step evaluation process under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), where generally speaking, the ALJ considers: (1) the claimant’s work activity, i.e., “substantial gainful activity”; (2) the severity of claimant’s medical impairments; (3) whether the severe medical impairments satisfy the listings in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 and meets the duration requirement (where if it does, the claimant is deemed disabled and if not, the ALJ moves on to step four); (4) the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and past relevant work; and (5) the possibility of adjusting to other work, based on the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for determining whether a claimant is disabled, and that process is the proper framework for disability analysis.

Lindvall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-06

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled under the Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The Supreme Court recognized the validity of this analysis in Bowen v. Yuckert, and it remains the proper approach for analyzing whether a claimant is disabled. 482 U.S. 137, 140-42, 107 S. Ct. 2287, 2291, 96 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1987).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequential process, including considering a claimant's residual functional capacity and vocational factors at step five to decide whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Recendez v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-04-14(a)(4)(v)

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

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

Burnett v. Saul · filed 2021-06-02

ALJs are required to follow a sequential five-step test to assess whether a claimant is legally disabled. The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; and (3) whether the severe impairment (or combination of impairments) meets or equals one considered conclusively disabling such that the claimant is impeded from performing basic work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). If the impairment(s) does meet or equal this standard, the inquiry is over and the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). If not, the evaluation continues and the ALJ must determine (4) whether the claimant is capable of performing his past relevant work. Cannon v. Harris, 651 F.2d 513, 517 (7th Cir. 1981). If not, the ALJ must (5) consider the claimant’s age, education, and prior work experience and evaluate whether she is able to engage in another type of work existing in a significant number of jobs in the national economy. Id. At the fourth and fifth steps of the inquiry, the ALJ is required to evaluate the claimant’s RFC in calculating which work-related activities she is capable of performing given his limitations. Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1000 (7th Cir. 2004). In the final step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that there are jobs that the claimant is able to perform, in which case a finding of not disabled is due. Smith v. Schweiker, 735 F.2d 267, 270 (7th Cir. 1984).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the ALJ to determine disability through a five-step sequential evaluation, with the specified consequences for affirmative and negative findings at each step.

Nimmer v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-06-18(a)(4)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ employs a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The ALJ determines, in the following order: (1) whether the claimant is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment; (3) whether the impairment meets the criteria of any listing in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) whether the claimant’s RFC renders her unable to perform her past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience make her unable to adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. “A negative conclusion at any step (except for step three) precludes a finding of disability. An affirmative answer at steps one, two, or four leads to the next step. An affirmative answer at steps three or five results in a finding of disability.” Young v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 957 F.2d 386, 389 (7th Cir. 1992).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability, reaching step five only when earlier steps do not resolve the claim and then requiring proof that the claimant can perform other substantial work in the national economy.

Whitten v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-06(a)(4), (g)

In determining whether the claimant suffers from a “disability,” as defined in the Act, the Commissioner uses the five-step sequential analysis set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520 and 416.920, as follows: ... 5. If an individual’s impairment precludes him from performing his past work, other factors, including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity, must be considered to determine if other work can be performed. At steps one through four, if the Commissioner determines the claimant is or is not disabled (depending on the step), the ultimate decision regarding disability is reached, and there is no need to proceed to the next step. ... If, however, the Commissioner makes it to step five without conclusively determining whether the claimant is disabled or not, the Commissioner must “show that the claimant can perform other substantial work in the national economy,” for a finding of not disabled to be appropriate. In this case, the ALJ made it to step five and found, “[c]onsidering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual function capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.”

Section 404.1520(a)(4) uses a five-step disability inquiry: the claimant must establish the first three steps, and the Commissioner bears the burden at step five after a step-four finding that the claimant cannot perform past relevant work.

Conley v. Saul · filed 2021-07-07(a)(4) (a)(4)(i) (a)(4)(v)

A five-step regulatory framework is used to determine whether an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987) (describing five-step process); Pate-Fires, 564 F.3d at 942 (describing five-step process). Steps One through Three require the claimant to prove: (1) she is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) she suffers from a severe impairment; and (3) her condition meets or equals a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(iii). If the claimant does not suffer from a listed impairment or its equivalent, the Commissioner’s analysis proceeds to Steps Four and Five. Step Four requires the Commissioner to consider whether the claimant retains the functional capacity (RFC) to perform past relevant work (PRW). Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating she is no longer able to return to her PRW. Pate-Fires, 564 F.3d at 942. If the Commissioner determines the plaintiff cannot return to PRW, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at Step Five to show the claimant retains the RFC to perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation of disability, under which a claimant found able to perform past relevant work is not disabled and step-five analysis is unnecessary.

Zajac v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(b), (d), (e), and (f)

The social security regulations articulate a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a-f), 416.920(a-f). ... 4. If an individual is capable of performing her past relevant work, a finding of “not disabled” must be made (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e)); ... 5. If an individual’s impairment is so severe as to preclude the performance of past work, other factors including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if other work can be performed (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f)). ... Because the ALJ’s step-four finding that Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work is supported by substantial evidence, the Court need not consider Plaintiff’s arguments concerning the ALJ’s alternate step-five findings.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequence, with the applicant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner bearing it at the final step.

Hill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(a)(4)

The applicable regulations set forth a five-step analysis the Commissioner must follow in determining eligibility for disability benefits. ... The burden of proof is on the applicant for the first four steps, with the Commissioner bearing the burden of proof on the final step. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) and 416.920(a)(4); Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, with the claimant bearing the burden at the first four steps and the Commissioner bearing it at the fifth step.

Barnes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-24(a)(4)

Under the applicable regulations, an alleged disability is evaluated under the sequential five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v). The Second Circuit has described the process as follows: ... At the first four steps, the claimant bears the burden of proof. At the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that there are jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. ... The ALJ evaluated Barnes’ claim pursuant to the five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) and concluded that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. (R. 10–23). The Court finds that ALJ McCormack’s thorough and well-reasoned Decision applied the correct legal standards, weighed the medical and opinion evidence properly, and was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a sequential process addressing substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, residual functional capacity, and past relevant work.

Benaderet v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-01(b)-(f)

In evaluating a claim for disability benefits, the ALJ must follow a five-step, sequential process. Apke v. Saul, 817 F. App’x 252, 255 (7th Cir. 2020). At step one, “the ALJ must determine whether the claimant was engaged in substantial gainful activity.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(b), 416.920(b)). At step two, “the ALJ must assess whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is ‘severe’ or a combination of impairments that is ‘severe.’” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(c), 416.920(c)). At step three, “the ALJ must evaluate whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is of a severity to meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in the regulations.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, 416.926). “Before moving onto the next step, the ALJ must also consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity, which is assessed by considering all claimed impairments including those that are not severe.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(e), 404.1545, 416.920(e), 416.945). At step four, “the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform the requirements of [his] past relevant work.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(f), 416.920(f)).

Section 404.1520 sets out a five-step sequential process for determining whether a claimant is disabled, including evaluation of work activity, impairments, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Nauman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-08

The Commissioner typically employs a five-step sequential process to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also Waters v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 2002). This five-step analysis is as follows: First, the claimant must not be presently working. Second, a claimant must establish that he has an impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Third, to secure a finding of disability without consideration of age, education, and work experience, a claimant must establish that his impairment meets or equals an impairment enumerated in the listing of impairments in the appendix to the regulations. Fourth, a claimant must establish that his impairment prevents him from doing past relevant work. Finally, the burden shifts to the [Commissioner] to establish that the claimant can perform relevant work. If the [Commissioner] meets this burden, the claimant must then prove that he cannot in fact perform the work suggested.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, with the evaluation stopping when the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at a step.

Young v. Saul · filed 2021-09-13(a)(4)

The Commissioner’s regulations set forth a five-step sequence to be used in evaluating disability claims: ... (v) At the fifth and last step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your age, education, and work experience to see if you can make an adjustment to other work. If you can make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are not disabled. If you cannot make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (internal citations omitted). If it is determined that the claimant is or is not disabled at any step of the evaluation process, the evaluation will not progress to the next step. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated under a five-step sequential analysis, including consideration of residual functional capacity and ability to perform past and other work.

SMITH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-29(b)-(f)

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations8 for determining disability that require application of a five-step sequential analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b)-(f). Entitlement to benefits is therefore dependent upon a finding that the claimant is incapable of performing work in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to use a five-step sequential evaluation and to stop once a disability or nondisability finding is made at a step.

Higgins v. Saul · filed 2021-09-29

The ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process in determining whether an individual is disabled.6 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987). If at any step the ALJ determines that he can make a finding of disability or non-disability, a determination will be made, and no further evaluation is required. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24 (2003). Step one requires the ALJ to determine whether the individual is engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). SGA is defined as work activity that is both substantial and gainful; it involves doing significant physical or mental activities usually for pay or profit. Id. § 404.1572(a)–(b). If the individual is engaged in SGA, then a finding of not disabled is made. If the individual is not engaged in SGA, then the analysis proceeds to step two.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps, and the inquiry ends if the claimant is found not disabled at any step.

Darby v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-18(a)(4)

To facilitate a uniform and efficient processing of disability claims, the Act has by regulation reduced the statutory definition of “disability” to a series of five sequential questions. An examiner must consider whether the claimant (1) is engaged in substantial gainful activity, (2) has a severe impairment, (3) has an impairment which equals an illness contained in the Social Security Administration’s official Listing of Impairments found at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, (4) has an impairment which prevents past relevant work, and (5) has an impairment which prevents him from doing substantial gainful employment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If an individual is found not disabled at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires an ALJ to determine disability through a five-step sequential process, including evaluating severe impairments, listing equivalence, residual functional capacity, and past or other work.

Tidmore v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-15(a)(4)(i)–(v)

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

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims, considering substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

MOORE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-12-23(a)

The Commissioner has provided the ALJ with a five-step sequential analysis to use when evaluating the disabled status of each claimant. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a). The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if the claimant has a severe impairment, whether it meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P., appx. 1; (4) if the impairment does not satisfy one of the impairment listings, whether the claimant’s impairments prevent him from performing his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is incapable of performing his past relevant work, whether he can perform any other work which exists in the national economy, in light of his age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity (“RFC”).4 20 C.F.R. §404.1520.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner bearing it at step five.

Aubin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-14

The Commissioner follows a five-step evaluation process—found at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920—to determine if a claimant is disabled: ... Under this five-step sequential analysis, the claimant has the burden of proof in Steps One through Four. ... The burden shifts to the Commissioner at Step Five to establish whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform available work in the national economy. ... Only if a claimant satisfies each element of the analysis, including inability to do other work, and meets the duration requirements, is he determined to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b)-(f) and 416.920(b)-(f); see also Walters, 127 F.3d at 529.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation, including a step-three comparison of severe impairments with Appendix 1 listings and an RFC assessment if the claimant does not meet a listing.

GARDA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-17(a)(4)(iii)

Step three further considers the medical severity of the claimant’s physical and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). The claimant’s severe impairment or combination of impairments must meet or equal the ones listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).4 A combination of impairments may be medically equivalent to a listing if the Commissioner can ... find a listed impairment of equal medical significance as the combination and the combination is medically severe. C.F.R. §§ 404.1523(c), 1526(b)(3). A claimant meeting these criteria will be found disabled without requiring consideration of their age, education, and work experience. Id. § 404.1520(d). If the claimant does not meet step three, the ALJ must assess their residual functional capacity (RFC). Id. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for determining disability, including whether the claimant works, has a severe impairment, meets a listing, can perform past relevant work, and can adjust to other work.

Miley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-20

Social Security regulations establish a five-step sequential analysis to arrive at a final determination of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a)-(f). The ALJ must first determine whether the claimant is presently employed. If so, a finding of non-disability is made, and the inquiry concludes. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). In the second step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment or combination of impairments. If the ALJ finds that claimant does not suffer from a severe impairment or combination of impairments, then a finding of non-disability results, and the inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Step three requires the ALJ to compare the claimant’s severe impairment(s) to those in the listing of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d), subpart P, appendix I. Certain impairments are so severe, whether considered alone or in conjunction with other impairments, that, if they are established, the regulations require a finding of disability without further inquiry into the claimant’s ability to perform other work. See Gibson v. Heckler, 762 F.2d 1516, 1518 n.1 (11th Cir. 1985). If the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, disability is presumed and benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Step four involves a determination of whether the claimant’s impairments prevent him or her from performing his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform his or her past relevant work, then a prima facie case of disability is established. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The burden then shifts to the ALJ to show at step five that, despite the claimant’s impairments, he or she is able to perform work in the national economy in light of the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Phillips, 357 F. 3d at 1239. In order to determine whether the claimant has the ability to adjust to other work in the national economy, the ALJ may either apply the Medical Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404 subpt. P, app.2, or utilize the assistance of a vocational expert. See Phillips, 357 F. 3d at 1239-40.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process addressing substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Geist v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-02(a)(4)(i)-(v)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner inquires: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in any substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the relevant regulation; (4) considering the Commissioner’s assessment of the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), whether the impairment prevents the claimant from continuing his past relevant work; and (5) considering assessment of the RFC and other factors, whether the claimant can perform other types of work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate a disability claim through a five-step sequence, including determining at step three whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Spurgeon v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-09(a)(4)

Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff Spurgeon did not satisfy the criteria for disability under “Listing 4.11” for chronic venous insufficiency. As explained above, the ALJ evaluated Spurgeon’s application for disability benefits using the five-step sequential process. Doc. 10-3 at 64; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. The third step of that process required the ALJ to determine whether Spurgeon’s impairment or combinations of impairments met or equaled the severity of the specified impairments in any “Listing of Impairments.”

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine disability through a five-step sequential evaluation covering substantial gainful activity, impairment severity, listed impairments, residual functional capacity and past work, and other work.

Bernard v. Saul · filed 2022-03-21(a)(4)

An ALJ uses a five-step process to determine if a person is disabled. See Bowen v. Yucket, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... At Step One, an ALJ asks whether a claimant is presently engaged in substantial gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not disabled. ... At Step Two, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that qualify as severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... At Step Three, an ALJ considers whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 to the regulation (a list of impairments presumed severe enough to preclude work). If so, benefits are awarded without consideration of the claimant’s age, education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... At Step Four, if a claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment, an ALJ will assess and make a finding about a claimant’s residual functional capacity based on all relevant medical and other evidence in a claimant’s case record. 20 C.R.F. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Benefits are denied if the claimant can still perform past relevant work. ... At Step Five, if a claimant’s impairments prevent them from making an adjustment to any other work in the national economy, they will be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).