20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant's residual functional capacity before Step Four of the disability sequential evaluation.

Williams v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2025-03-27(a)(4)(iv)

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

Section 404.1520 separates the step-three severity assessment from the later RFC assessment; a moderate limitation found at an earlier step need not appear verbatim in the RFC.

Almarawi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-08(a)(4)(iii)-(v)

Accordingly, a “mild” or “moderate’ limitation found at steps two or three need not be included verbatim into the RFC.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to determine disability through a five-step sequential inquiry covering current employment, severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work.

Edwards v. Saul · filed 2022-09-16(a)(4)

“The Social Security Administration has outlined a ‘five-step, sequential evaluation process’ to determine whether a claimant is disabled[.]” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir. 2019) (citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). First, the Commissioner must establish whether the claimant is presently employed. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is unemployed, the Commissioner goes to the second step and determines whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment restricting his or her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant has such an impairment, the Commissioner moves to the third step and considers whether the medical severity of the impairment “meets or equals” a listing in Appendix One of Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is considered disabled. See id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... If the claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, then the Commissioner continues to the fourth step and determines whether the claimant has the RFC to perform his or her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Finally, if the claimant does not have the RFC to perform past relevant work, the Commissioner completes the fifth step and ascertains whether the claimant possesses the ability to perform any other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

At step five, the ALJ considers whether a claimant can adjust to other work; remand is required when the identified jobs do not adequately account for a potentially material task limitation.

Shipman v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-29(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential analysis process, the ALJ considers the claimant’s age, education, and work experience to see if a claimant can make the adjustment to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... Because the jobs identified by the vocational expert all have a GED Reasoning Level of 2, 3, and 4, the Court finds that remand is required to properly consider Shipman’s limitation to one- and two-step tasks.

Section 404.1520(e) requires assessing whether a claimant can perform sustained work-related physical and mental activities on a regular and continuing basis despite limitations; limited part-time work alone does not establish that ability.

Koch v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-03(e)

The fact that Plaintiff is able to perform work 12.5 hours a week does not establish that he is able to perform “sustained, work-related physical and mental activities . . . on a regular and continuing basis despite his limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(c) permits denial at Step 2 only as a minimal severity screen for claims that could not succeed even if vocational factors were considered.

McDonald v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1986-07-17(c)

Because the Step 2 regulation, as currently construed by the Secretary in Ruling 85-28, constitutes no more than such a de minimis screening policy, we hold that it is valid.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to assess the medical severity of a claimant's impairments at Steps 2 and 3 of the disability determination process.

Mausehund v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-02-20(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iii)

At Steps 2 and 3, an ALJ must consider the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520(a) permits the ALJ to decide disability from the existing record when the evidence is consistent and sufficient to determine whether the claimant is disabled.

Hayes v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-27(a)

If the evidence in the record is consistent and sufficient for the ALJ to determine whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ will make a determination based on that evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520(h) allows the Commissioner to skip determining whether a claimant can perform past relevant work when the claimant is found not disabled at step five.

Hamilton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-25(h)

At step four, the ALJ made no determination regarding Plaintiff’s past relevant work, applying the expedited process. Tr. 1409; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(h), 416.920(h) (explaining the step four expedited process). Plaintiff claims the ALJ erred because of the lack of an evaluation, but Plaintiff is mistaken, Even if enough evidence existed to make a determination regarding Plaintiff’s past relevant work, such error is harmless in light of the ALJ’s alternative finding at step five.

Section 404.1520(h) permits an ALJ to bypass a past-relevant-work finding and proceed to step five when age, education, and the residual functional capacity assessment establish that the claimant can adjust to other work.

Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-02(h)

The regulations allow for an “[e]xpedited process,” whereby an ALJ may disregard a claimant’s PRW and proceed to the fifth step of the evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(h). “If we find that you can adjust to other work based solely on your age, education, and the same residual functional capacity assessment we made under paragraph (e) of this section, we will find that you are not disabled and will not make a finding about whether you can do your past relevant work at the fourth step.” The expedited process effectively renders the step four finding inconsequential, allowing the court to disregard the ALJ’s erroneous step four finding and consider his step five finding.

At step four, a claimant’s daily activities must support the conclusion the ALJ draws from them.

Cole v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-05-29(e)

Although an ALJ is entitled to consider a claimant’s daily activities at Step Four, see Macia v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 1009, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e)), it follows that those activities must actually support the conclusion he reaches. Here, they do not, and thus they cannot provide substantial evidence to bolster the ALJ’s reliance on Dr. Heilpern’s opinion.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has severe impairments, using a threshold inquiry into whether an impairment significantly limits basic work activities and considering the combined effect of all impairments.

White v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-25(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)). The step-two severity analysis is a “threshold showing,” Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 147, that serves to “identify[ ] 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[.]” Id. at 153. In evaluating whether the claimant’s impairments are severe, “the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant’s impairments on her ability to function, without regard to whether each alone was sufficiently severe.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities for at least twelve months.

Stucki v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-29(a)(4)(ii)

An impairment is severe if it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities for at least twelve months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; a diagnosis alone does not establish severity.

Owens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-15(c)

As relevant to this case, a severe impairment is an impairment that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a) (defining a non-severe impairment). A severe impairment must last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a); 404.1509; 404.1520(c); Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 217 (2002). Because an individual is diagnosed with a condition does not mean that the condition would cause limitations that would warrant a finding of a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); 404.1521(a); Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860, 863 (6th Cir. 1988) (“The mere diagnosis [of a condition], of course, says nothing about the severity of the condition.”).

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

Mix v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-20(a)(4)(ii)

The second step in the five-step evaluation process requires ALJs to consider “the medical severity of [claimants’] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

At Step Two, § 404.1520(c) requires deciding whether an impairment significantly limits basic work activities and forbids considering age, education, or work experience in making the severity determination.

Eddington v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-22(c)

The Court agrees with Eddington that the ALJ further erred in considering that she continued to work despite her impairments in finding them not severe at Step Two. (Doc. No. 9 at 19.) “‘[W]ork experience” should not be considered in determining whether an impairment is severe at Step Two of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (‘If you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled. We will not consider your age, education, and work experience.’) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to assess impairment severity at step two, carry all limitations into the RFC even when an impairment is non-severe, and find disability at step three without further inquiry when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Glick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-06(a)(4)(ii), (c), (d), (e)

The medical severity of a claimant’s impairments is considered at step two. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... The ALJ must consider all limitations and restrictions when formulating the RFC, even those stemming from impairments that are not “severe.” See Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1049 (9th Cir. 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... At step three, the ALJ determines if a claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“the Listing”). Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999). ... If a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment he or she will be found disabled at this step without further inquiry. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520’s step-two analysis treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; an impairment with no more than a minimal effect is not severe.

Kelly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-10(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential analysis under the Social Security regulations, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). But “[i]f the evidence indicates that an impairment is a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work, then it is not considered severe for Step 2 purposes.” Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118, 1121 (7th Cir. 2014); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.922 (“An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”). Plaintiff bears the burden to show that her impairment is severe. See Young, 362 F.3d at 1000. ... Here, the ALJ determined that Ms. Kelly suffered from one severe impairment: degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine with chronic cervical radiculopathy status post fusion. On the other hand, the ALJ found that “status post right carpal tunnel release, and left carpal tunnel syndrome” were non-severe conditions because “there is no evidence that [they] cause more than minimal vocationally-relevant limitations.” (R. at 26.); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 (“Unless your impairment is expected to result in death, it must have lasted or must be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.”); accord § 416.909. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding, and Ms. Kelly’s insistence that the ALJ should have found her carpal tunnel syndrome to be severe amounts to a demand for the Court to reweigh evidence, which it cannot do.

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.

White v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-01-14(c)

A severe impairment is one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... The court does not need to consider whether the ALJ erred when he decided that White’s sleep apnea was not a severe impairment. “Any error at step two was harmless because the ALJ found in [the claimant’s] favor as to impairment, and the ALJ properly noted that he considered [the claimant’s] impairments in the later steps.” ... For this reason, any error was harmless.

At step two of the disability evaluation, § 404.1520 requires an impairment or combination of impairments to significantly limit basic work activities and last or be expected to last at least one year to be considered severe.

Gardley v. O'Malley · filed 2025-01-31(c)

At step two of the five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ considers whether a claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, or combination of impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. If an impairment, or a combination of impairments, significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform a basic work activity and has lasted, or is expected to last, for at least a year continuously, those impairments are considered “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... Thus, although the threshold for finding an impairment “severe” at step two is not high, the ALJ did not err in not finding Plaintiff’s bilateral knee and left ankle conditions were severe impairments.

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

Page v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-14(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... The foregoing evidence and analysis are more than sufficient to sustain the ALJ’s step two determination under the deferential standard of review applicable here.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c) require Step Two to determine whether a claimant has a severe impairment that meets the duration requirement and significantly limits basic work activities.

Miller v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-07(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Step Two is a threshold determination of whether a claimant has a severe impairment (or combination of impairments) that meets the twelve-month duration requirement and significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

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

Greenwood v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-11(c)

At step two, “[a]n impairment is ‘severe’ if it ‘significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.’” Eralte v. Colvin, 2014 WL 7330441, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2014) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)). ... Therefore, the ALJ’s step two determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant at step two to show a severe medically determinable impairment, and an impairment is nonsevere when it has no more than a minimal effect on the ability to work.

Medina v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-20(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, a plaintiff has the burden to present evidence of medical signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings that establish a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is severe, and that can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. See Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004–05 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382c(a)(3)(A)); §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Step two is “a de minimis screening device [used] to dispose of groundless claims.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). An impairment or combination of impairments can be found “not severe” only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has “no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

Sections 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c) require a two-step step-two inquiry: determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment, then determine whether it is severe, meaning that it significantly limits the claimant's ability to do basic work activities.

Rand v. Dudek · filed 2025-04-09(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, 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 involves a two-step process: 1) determining whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment, and 2) if so, determining whether the impairment is severe. To be severe, the medical evidence must establish that the impairment would have more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

At step two, the regulation asks whether an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Combest v. Dudek · filed 2025-04-16(c)

Step two inquires whether any impairment or combination of impairments “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At Step 2, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Skolny v. Social Security Commissioner · filed 2025-05-21(c)

The regulations further provide: “If you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two, § 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that meets the duration requirement and significantly limits basic work activities; if none exists, the claim ends there.

AUSTIN v. O'MALLEY · filed 2025-03-31(a)(4)(ii)

Step two is a threshold determination of whether claimants have a severe impairment (or combination of impairments) that meets the twelve-month duration requirement and significantly limits their ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(@i), 416.920(a)(4)() (2010). If the Commissioner finds no severe impairments, the claimant is not disabled and the analysis does not proceed to the other steps. Id. ... Thus, the AL]’s failure to address the additional alleged impairments at step two of the evaluation process is not harmless, since the relevant medical evidence was not addressed at any point in the evaluation process, and the additional alleged impairments remain completely unaddressed.

At Step Two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to consider the medical severity of the claimant's impairments.

Dierking v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-07-18(a)(4)(ii)

But that is not what’s required by the relevant regulation, which dictates only that the ALJ “consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s)” at Step Two. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine at Step Two whether a claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment, meaning one that significantly limits the claimant's ability to work.

Wright-Cray v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-08-07(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At Step Two, the ALJ reviews the record to determine whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... An impairment is severe at Step Two if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to work. § 404.1520(c). ... The ALJ was entitled to resolve conflicts in the evidence and her Step Two finding regarding Wright-Cray’s migraines is supported by substantial evidence. ... Further, even if the ALJ had erred in her Step Two finding with regard to Wright-Cray’s migraines, that would not entitle Wright-Cray to relief. ... The ALJ evaluated Wright-Cray’s symptoms associated with her migraines when assessing Wright-Cray’s RFC. Thus, Wright-Cray has failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the ALJ’s Step Two determination.

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

Drca v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-07(a)(4)(ii)

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

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, making step two a threshold for continuing the evaluation.

Griffith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-21(c)

A severe impairment under step 2 is defined as “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); ... Therefore, the Court cannot say that the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff's diabetes and neuropathy non-severe at step 2 of the analysis.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires determining severity without considering a claimant’s work experience; the ability to perform past work is considered at step four under § 404.1520(a).

Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-26(c)

Consistent with this understanding, under the Commissioner’s regulations, an ALJ cannot consider a claimant’s work experience in making a severity determination at step two. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); see also SSR 85-28 (“At the second step of sequential evaluation, then, medical evidence alone is evaluated in order to assess the effects of the impairment(s) on ability to do basic work activities.”). Rather, a finding that Plaintiff possesses the ability to perform past work is appropriate at step four, rather than step two. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities; when the ALJ finds another severe impairment and continues the sequential evaluation, an error in classifying the impairment is harmless.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-10(c)

A “severe impairment” is one that “significantly limits . . . physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)). ... When an ALJ finds severe and non-severe impairments at Step Two and continues with the subsequent steps in the sequential evaluation process, any error at Step Two is harmless. E.g., Maziarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240, 244 (6th Cir. 1987).

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

DUTRA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-09-15(c)

To qualify for benefits, the plaintiff must have an impairment severe enough to significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c) require the ALJ at step two to determine whether a claimant's medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities, using a de minimis screening standard.

Toro-Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-26(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must consider the severity of a claimant’s impairments and whether those impairments or combination of impairments significantly limit his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c); 404.1509. The step two severity test is a de minimis screening for the ALJ to weed out groundless claims that would clearly result in a finding of non-disability, even if vocational factors were considered. McDonald v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 795 F.2d 1118, 1125–1126 (1st Cir.1986).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to show a medically determinable impairment or combination that is severe; an impairment is not severe when it has no more than a minimal effect on the ability to work.

Colten · filed 2025-11-06(c)

At step two, a claimant must make a threshold showing that (1) she has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments and (2) the impairment or combination of impairments is severe. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). An impairment or combination of impairments can be found “not severe” only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. ... The ALJ applied the appropriate standard for evaluating the severity of mental impairments at step two and did not improperly apply listing-level requirements to the step-two analysis.

At Step Two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to assess impairment severity; failure to find an additional severe impairment is harmless when the ALJ considers all impairments in the remaining disability analysis.

Jones · filed 2025-11-20(a)(4)(ii)

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

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

STEPKO · filed 2025-11-26(c)

An impairment is severe when it “significantly limits [a plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether an impairment is severe, meaning it significantly limits physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities and has more than a minimal effect on ability to work.

LaMarsh · filed 2026-01-14(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, 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. ... To be severe, the medical evidence must establish that the impairment would have more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work. ... As to Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder, the ALJ erred by not finding it to be a severe impairment.

At Step Two, the regulation requires the claimant to show a severe impairment that significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities; the sequential analysis continues when the claimant is not found disabled at that step.

Hagger · filed 2026-01-20(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At the second step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). Social Security regulations provide that “[i]f you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... Furthermore, the ALJ did not commit reversible error at step 2 of the sequential analysis because he did not end his analysis there and proceeded to the next step.

At Step Two, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment; a mental impairment is non-severe when it causes only a minimal limitation in the ability to perform basic work activities.

O'Malley · filed 2026-03-10(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two, the ALJ determines the severity of a plaintiff’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... Accordingly, the Commissioner appropriately relied on Plaintiff’s representations and the medical record to find that Plaintiff’s mental impairments were non-severe because they only cause a “minimal limitation” in her ability to perform basic work activities.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) makes step two a threshold inquiry; finding at least one severe impairment requires the ALJ to continue to the remaining steps.

Sanchez · filed 2026-03-11(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairments are severe and meet the twelve-month durational requirement. Id. §§ 404.1509, 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Because the ALJ here found at least one severe impairment, she continued to the next steps of the five-step process, considering both the severe and non-severe impairments to determine whether Santos S. could perform his past work. In other words, any potential failure to treat the remaining impairments as severe amounts to harmless error. Id.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ at step two to identify medically determinable impairments and determine whether they are severe, meaning they significantly limit basic work abilities.

Stumpf · filed 2026-03-18(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the Commissioner’s five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine first whether the claimant has any medically determinable physical or mental impairments, and then consider the severity of those impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1521. A physical or mental impairment is a “medically determinable impairment” if it can be established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. A medically determinable impairment 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).

Section 404.1520(c) defines a severe impairment at step two as one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities; an error in the severity finding is harmless when the ALJ proceeds through the later steps.

Duran · filed 2026-03-18(c)

An impairment is severe if it “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... Because the ALJ proceeded beyond step two, any error in finding Mr. D.’s impairments nonsevere—or in failing to explain this finding—is harmless. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision to proceed beyond step two, and treat some impairments as severe in subsequent steps, rendered any error in the nonseverity finding harmless.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether an alleged impairment is severe at step two, and a step-two error may be harmless at step four only if the impairment’s effects are properly considered in the later sequential analysis.

Davison · filed 2026-03-19(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, an ALJ determines whether each of a claimant’s alleged impairments is “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is severe when 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). ... Because an ALJ need only find one impairment severe to proceed to the next steps, step two serves a gatekeeper function “designed to weed out individuals whose impairments are so minimal that they cannot possibly meet the statutory definition of disability.” ... Consequently, misclassifying an impairment at step two could be harmless at step four if the ALJ gave the impairment its due regard in the sequential process. ... Given the significant role that the beneficial effects of Nurtec had on the ALJ’s analysis at both step two and step four, I find that the ALJ erred and that the error was not harmless.

At step two, an ALJ must identify severe impairments, but failing to classify one impairment as severe is not reversible error if at least one other severe impairment is found.

Edwards · filed 2026-03-19(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the review process, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that is severe. Allman v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1326, 1330 (10th Cir. 2016) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii)). If the ALJ finds that a claimant has no severe impairment, he will find that the claimant is not disabled and deny benefits. Id. But if the ALJ finds at least one severe impairment, he must proceed to step three analysis. Id. Therefore, “the failure to find a particular impairment severe at step two is not reversible error when the ALJ finds that at least one other impairment is severe.” Id. ... Here, the ALJ determined at step two that Plaintiff had severe impairments of obesity, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, status post two lumbar surgeries, and degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. Accordingly, because the ALJ found that Plaintiff had at least one severe medically determinable physical impairment and therefore proceeded to step three, it is not reversible error that the ALJ failed to discuss Plaintiff’s CPS.

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

Schilling · filed 2026-03-23(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). ... At Step Two the ALJ found that the bilateral shoulder pain was not severe because the symptoms were mild, transient, or otherwise caused no more than minimal functional impairment. Tr. 20. ... Any error arising from failure to include an impairment at Step Two is harmless when the ALJ includes limitations that address the impairment, as the ALJ did in this case. Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir 2007).

At step two, Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is severe.

Marriott · filed 2026-03-25(a)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether plaintiff has a medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, that is “severe”. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(ii).

At step two, the ALJ must address specific evidence about the severity of a claimant’s mental impairments, including findings on the Paragraph B factors.

ROBINSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-10-26(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two, the ALJ shall weigh the specific findings of Mr. Fleishman against the record as whole, and address each of his specific findings with respect to the Paragraph B factors.

At step two, a mental impairment is severe if it would be expected to interfere even minimally with the claimant’s ability to work.

Cave v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-26(c)

While the Court is not suggesting that Cave will be successful in his quest for DIB, the ALJ erred in not finding at Step Two that Cave had severe mental impairments and completing the five-step process for the mental impairments.

At step two, a mental impairment need not require hospitalization or regular therapy to be severe.

Hooper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-02(c)

The ALJ noted plaintiff did not require inpatient hospitalization or engage in regular therapy during the relevant period, but there is no requirement that a mental impairment rise to the level of requiring hospitalization or any level of engagement with therapy to be severe. The ALJ seems to have imposed a level of scrutiny far greater than the de minimis screening device step two is intended to be. Plaintiff’s claims of having severe mental impairments are not groundless claims that should be dismissed at step two. The ALJ erred by finding that plaintiff had no severe mental impairments.

Section 404.1520’s sequential evaluation requires the ALJ at steps four and five to determine residual functional capacity while considering all impairments, including non-severe mental impairments.

Prude v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-13(a)(4)(iv)-(v)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits, an ALJ uses a five-step evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If the ALJ finds the claimant is not disabled after one of the sequential steps, the analysis ends. ... He argues that steps four and five require considering all impairments—including mental—to determine the residual functional capacity. And that statement is correct: the ALJ “must [] consider a claimant’s medical condition taken as a whole” assessing “all impairments, severe and non-severe.” ... Here, the ALJ considered, in the residual functional capacity analysis, the fact that the “claimant has the ability to hear and understand normal conversational speech,” and “can do work-related mental activities involving common understanding and memory; sustain concentration and persistence; social interaction and adaptation.” Although the ALJ’s acknowledgment of his mental impairments is brief, we find it sufficient because it explicitly acknowledges the claimant’s mental capabilities relevant to a job.

At step four, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity after considering all medical and other evidence in the record.

Harding v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-07(e)

At Step Four of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC after considering all the medical and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires the decision maker to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity by evaluating all relevant record evidence in a holistic, fact-specific manner.

Linger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-07(e)

In determining the claimant’s RFC, the decision maker must evaluate “all” relevant record evidence, which is a holistic and fact-specific evaluation. Id. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ at Step Four to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity while considering subjective symptom complaints.

Saxton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-21(e)

At Step Four, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s subjective symptom complaints when assessing a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

At step four, the regulation requires the adjudicator to assess residual functional capacity and account for all of the claimant’s impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Roach v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-08(a)(iv), (e)

At step four, the ALJ determines the claimant’s RFC, which is his ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis. Britt v. Saul, 860 F. App'x 256, 258 (4th Cir. 2021) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(iv), (e); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(iv), (e); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). The RFC analysis “must account for all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe or fail to meet a listed impairment.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e), 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2); SSR 96-8P, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,474, 34,475 (July 2, 1996)). ... Likewise, here, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s mental impairments and found them to be non-severe in step two of the disability determination process and then provided again that she “considered all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe, when assessing the claimant’s [RFC].” ECF No. 16 at 15 (citing R. 20). ... Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined the ALJ had done all that was required at step four.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity in light of all severe and non-severe impairments and determining whether the claimant can perform past work; an ALJ need not mention every factor supporting the RFC decision.

Lewis · filed 2025-11-11(a)(4)(iv)

In accordance with SSA regulations, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.945(a)(2), she concluded that Lewis’s hearing loss amounted to, at most, a non-severe impairment and took it into account, along with all of his severe and non-severe impairments, when determining his RFC. See R. at 24–25. Given that the ALJ fully followed procedure, she did not then have to take the additional step of specifically mentioning every single factor that played a role in her decision not to include an auditory limitation for Lewis in his RFC. Unlike what Lewis may suggest, that is simply not a requirement imposed upon ALJs.

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

Hollis · filed 2026-01-07(e)

At Step Four, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity at step four.

Hejsek v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-19(e)

At step four, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination has sufficient support in the record.

At Step Four, the ALJ must determine residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

Luksic v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-22(e)

At Step Four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

At step four, an RFC can account for moderate limits in concentration, persistence, and pace through restrictions on task complexity and workplace interactions when the record supports those restrictions.

Pursell v. Saul · filed 2020-12-02(a)(4)(iv)

When formulating Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ accounted for his deficits in concentration, persistence, and pace by including limitations to “simple routine tasks, with few changes in work setting,” “no tandem tasks,” “infrequent and superficial interactions with supervisors and co-workers,” and “no interaction with the general public.”

At step four, the ALJ must assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence, including the claimant’s subjective symptom complaints.

Robinson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-24(e)

At Step Four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) permits an ALJ to ask whether work exists in significant numbers for a person with the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity.

Heard v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-08(a)(4)(v)

An ALJ may pose hypothetical questions as to whether there are jobs of sufficient number in the economy that someone with the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and RFC could perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Step five is required only if the claimant cannot perform past relevant work at step four; a finding of not disabled at step four ends the sequential analysis.

Browning · filed 2026-03-18(g)(1)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant cannot perform their past work, the ALJ proceeds to step five. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1). ... Because William was found to be “not disabled” during the closed period of disability in step four, the ALJ was not required to proceed to step five. The ALJ did not err.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through five steps in sequence, stopping when a claimant is found disabled or not disabled; residual functional capacity is used at steps four and five.

Baquer v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-20(a)(4)

“The Commissioner uses a sequential, five-step approach to determine whether a claimant is … disabled: (1) whether the claimant is presently performing substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing any other substantial gainful activity.” ... Before moving from step three to four, the ALJ determines the claimant’s RFC, which is used to evaluate steps four and five. ... “Under this five-step approach, if the Commissioner determines at a prior step that the applicant is or is not disabled, the evaluation process stops ....”

At step four, the ALJ compares a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the demands of past relevant work to determine whether the claimant can perform it.

Newton v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-16(e), (f)

Upon assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ compares the RFC with the physical and mental demands of claimant’s past relevant work (“PRW”) and then determines whether claimant’s impairment(s) prevent claimant from performing such work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e)(f).

At step four, a claimant’s impairments must prevent her from doing her past relevant work to establish disability.

Griffin v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2009-01-02(f)

Rather than base the disability determination solely upon Griffin’s heart condition, however, the ALJ properly assessed the specific question of whether her medical impairment imposed functional limitations that precluded her employment as an auditor and bookkeeper. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f) (“Your impairments) must prevent you from doing your past relevant work.”)

At step four, § 404.1520 requires comparing a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the demands of past relevant work; the ability to perform the actual past job supports a finding of not disabled.

Gillis v. SSA · filed 2009-04-06(a)(4)(iv), (e)

At the fourth step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your past relevant work. If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled. ... Your impairment(s) must prevent you from doing your past relevant work. If we cannot make a determination or decision at the first three steps of the sequential evaluation process, we will compare our residual functional capacity assessment . . . with the physical and mental demands of your past relevant work. (See § 1560(b).) If you can still do this kind of work, we will find that you are not disabled. ... Where, as here, the ALJ determined that claimant was able to perform the actual duties of his former convenience store job, he was under no obligation to determine whether claimant retained the RFC to perform that job as it is generally performed in the national economy.

Section 404.1520(c) cannot be used to deny a disability claim without considering the claimant’s age, education, and work experience because its nonseverity standard impermissibly amends the Social Security Act.

Boiano v. Heckler · filed 1984-05-15(c)

Although originally intended to provide a screening device to eliminate the truly frivolous claims, the nonseverity regulation in fact serves to limit entitlement on a broader scale than the Act permits. ... The nonseverity regulations do not “carry into effect the will of Congress.” Instead, they impermissibly amend the standard for disability set forth in the Social Security Act and are therefore invalid.

Section 404.1520(c) requires determining that a claimant has a severe impairment before considering vocational factors.

Joseph DIORIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1983-12-19(c)

Furthermore, under the regulations, one considers vocational factors only after determining that the claimant suffers a severe impairment.

At the step for deciding whether an impairment is severe, § 404.1520(c) does not require consideration of the claimant’s age, education, or work experience.

DeMarco v. Heckler · filed 1985-08-26(c)

The AU evaluated plaintiff in accord with the Secretary’s regulations, which provide that those three factors will not be considered in determining whether a claimant has a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process and allows the claim to be resolved at an early step without further analysis.

Guy v. Astrue · filed 2009-04-15(a)(4)

In making a determination as to a claimant’s disability, the Commissioner is required to apply the five-step sequential process set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. ... If the Commissioner finds that a claimant is disabled (or not disabled) at an early step, in the process, he is not required to proceed with any further analysis.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) does not require the disability analysis to proceed to step five when the claimant can perform past relevant work at step four.

Huff v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-28(a)(4)

Therefore, the ALJ was not required to continue on to step five of the disability analysis.

Section 404.1520 ends the disability review once the claimant is found able to perform past relevant work, so the Secretary need not assess other vocational capabilities or obtain vocational-expert testimony.

Dorsey v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-04-11(e), (a)

Under these sections, a determination that Dorsey’s impairments did not prevent her from doing past relevant work rendered consideration of Dorsey’s vocational capabilities (in the use of a vocational expert) unnecessary. See 20 CFR § 404.1520(a) (“If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at any point in the review, we do not review further.”)

Section 404.1520(e) requires the past-relevant-work determination as a later step in the sequential evaluation, so an ALJ need not make that specific finding after finding no severe impairment.

Pryor v. Schweiker · filed 1983-05-16(e)

Under the regulations, however, such a specific finding is unnecessary if the ALJ finds no severe impairment. As discussed above, the ALJ can end his analysis if he finds no disability at any step. The specific determination of whether the impairment prevents a claimant from doing past relevant work, contained in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), is a later step than the finding of no disability based on no severe impairment.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the disability evaluation to proceed from the Listings inquiry to determining whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Emma Jane PULLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-06-02(e)

In evaluating Pullen’s claims, the AU followed the proper sequential process, proceeding from an inquiry into the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1, to a determination of whether Pullen could perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) makes consideration of a claimant’s capacity for sedentary work contingent on first finding that the claimant cannot perform previous work.

Martinez v. Bowen · filed 1988-05-16(e)

Plaintiff’s argument, however, ignores the sequential analysis required by the statutory scheme implemented by the Secretary’s regulations. ... Pursuant to that scheme, only if plaintiff is unable to do his previous work does the Secretary consider whether plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to do sedentary work, which is merely one classification of jobs designed to assist in determining the physical exertion requirements of work in the national economy. ... Where that is not the case, it follows that an incapacity to meet the general exertional requirements of sedentary work is not relevant under the regulations to the issue of whether plaintiff could perform his past work, and certainly is not, as petitioner suggests, dispositive of that issue, even if work as a security guard generally requires more exertional capacity than sedentary work.

Sections 404.1520(e) and (f) provide that disability benefits are denied when a claimant can perform past relevant work or, if not, when other work exists in significant numbers that the claimant can perform.

Kunges v. Sullivan · filed 1991-08-28(e) and (f)

Absent such a showing, disability benefits will be denied it the Secretary finds either (1) that the claimant could return to her past relevant work; or (2) that other jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and (f).

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

Quaglia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-07-23

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920, a five-step evaluation process is used to determine whether a person is eligible for disability benefits. The Commissioner considers: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” limiting his or her ability to perform basic work activities; (3) if so, whether the impairment meets criteria of listed impairments under the regulations, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1; (4) if not, whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if not, whether there is other work in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

At step four, § 404.1520(a)(iv) requires the ALJ to make specific findings about the claimant's ability to perform past relevant work, identify that work's physical and mental demands, and compare those demands with the claimant's residual functional capacity.

Kirk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-03-31(a)(iv)

As noted by the District Court, we require an ALJ to do three things in connection with determining whether a claimant’s RFC enables him to return to PRW. First, an ALJ must make specific findings of fact regarding a claimant’s ability to perform PRW. Second, an ALJ must make findings regarding the physical and mental demands of the PRW. Finally, an ALJ must compare the requirements of the claimant’s PRW to the claimant’s RFC and assess whether the claimant has the capability to perform his PRW. Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 120 (3d Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R. § 440.1520(a)(iv).

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires a finding of not disabled when a claimant can perform her past relevant work.

Washington v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-23(e)

If an individual is capable of performing the work she has done in the past, a finding of “not disabled” must be made.

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant who meets or equals a listed impairment as disabled, while subsection (e) requires proceeding to the past-relevant-work inquiry when step three is not satisfied.

Moore v. Colvin · filed 2018-07-03(d), (e)

The third step requires “the claimant” to show that she “suffers from an impairment that meets the duration requirement and meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to the Commissioner’s regulations.” Butler, 353 F.3d at 997. The ALJ specifically found that Plaintiff has no “impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in . . . Appendix 1[.]” (AR 22). Had the ALJ found the opposite, Plaintiff would have been “deemed disabled and the inquiry” would have ended. Butler, 353 F.3d at 997 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d)); (see AR 19) (indicating same)). ... Because Plaintiff failed to carry her burden “on the first four steps,” the ALJ correctly found her not disabled. Butler, 353 F.3d at 997; see id. (“If [as here] the claimant does not satisfy step three, the inquiry proceeds to the fourth step, which requires her to show that she suffers an impairment that renders her incapable of performing ‘past relevant work.’”) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e)).

Section 404.1520 ends the disability evaluation at step four when the claimant can perform past relevant work; at step five, it directs consideration of RFC, age, education, and work experience in deciding adjustment to other work.

Reed v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-20(f), (a)(4)(v)

But, in this case, the evaluation process ends at Step Four because the ALJ appropriately found the Plaintiff could perform her past work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) (“If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.”); ... In other words, the burden does not shift to the Commissioner to prove Plaintiff could perform other work, and the Court can affirm on that basis alone. Nevertheless, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings at Step Five. ... At Step Five, the ALJ considers the Plaintiff’s RFC, along with Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience, to determine whether Plaintiff can make an adjustment to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) directs the ALJ to determine whether a claimant can perform past relevant work, while the sequential evaluation proceeds to consideration of other work at step five if the claimant cannot do that past work.

Donovan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-08(a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

At step four, the ALJ determines whether a claimant can still perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If a claimant cannot perform her past relevant work, at step five the ALJ must show there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy the claimant is able to do. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098–99 (9th Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d)–(e), 416.920(d)–(e). ... The ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff can perform past relevant work, or in the alternative, that there are other jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(e)-(g) directs a sequential disability inquiry in which the analysis ends at step four if the claimant can perform past relevant work, but otherwise proceeds to step five to determine whether other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(e)-(g)

At Step Four, an ALJ considers a claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e)-(f) and 416.920(e)-(f). If she can perform her past relevant work, she is not disabled at Step Four and the inquiry stops. If she cannot perform her past relevant work, then the ALJ moves on to Step Five to determine if there exists other work the Plaintiff can perform when considering her residual functional capacity (RFC). If there are a substantial number of such jobs in the national economy, then the Plaintiff is not considered disabled under the Act. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g) and 41 6.920(g), 404.1560(c). Here, although the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was able to perform her past relevant work and therefore not disabled at Step Four, the ALJ also continued to Step Five of the sequential analysis. (Tr 28). Therefore, any error at Step Four is harmless so long as the ALJ properly concluded that Plaintiff could perform other work in the economy.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; in the Fifth Circuit, the impairment is not severe only when it is a slight abnormality with a minimal effect on the ability to work.

Scroggins v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-27(c)

Pursuant to the Commissioner’s regulations, a severe impairment is “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). The Fifth Circuit has held that a literal application of this regulation would be inconsistent with the Social Security Act because the regulation includes fewer conditions than indicated by the statute. ... Accordingly, in the Fifth Circuit, an impairment is not severe “only if it is a slight abnormality having such minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work.”

At step four, when an impairment does not meet the listed-impairment criteria, the claimant must show that it prevents her from performing her past work, and the sequential evaluation must continue to the later steps.

Mazzoni v. State · filed 1997-01-10(e)

If the impairment is not conclusively severe under the criteria set forth in the listing of impairments, step three is not satisfied and the claimant must prove at step four that the impairment prevents her from performing her past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1994). ... Thus, even if there is a negative answer to step three, the hearing officer must go on to steps four and five and evaluate the claimant’s ability to perform her former occupation or any other occupation.

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary, after finding a severe impairment, to determine whether it meets or equals a listed impairment and, if not, whether the claimant can perform past work or other work in the national economy.

Deuter v. Schweiker · filed 1983-07-28(d), (e), and (f)

On the contrary, it is apparent and we find that Deuter has a severe impairment. Accordingly, the Secretary will be required on remand to determine whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If it does, the Secretary should find that Deuter is disabled. If it does not, the Secretary must determine whether, despite the severe impairment, Deuter is capable of performing her past work or other work in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) and (f).

Section 404.1520(c) provides that a claimant found not to have a severe impairment is not disabled under the sequential evaluation procedure.

Benjamin CRUZ RIVERA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1986-06-03(c)

Under the sequential evaluation procedure used by the Secretary for determining disability claims, a finding that a claimant does not have a severe impairment automatically results in a finding of not “disabled.”

Once a claimant has a severe impairment, § 404.1520(a) requires consideration of residual functional capacity and the claimant’s ability to perform past work.

Darnell COCKERHAM, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1990-02-06(a)

Under this standard, if a claimant has a severe impairment, residual functioning capacity and ability to perform past work are considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

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

Menezes v. SSA · filed 2000-05-04(a) (c)

“[A claimant’s] impairment(s) must be severe and meet the duration requirement before [the SSA] can find [a claimant] to be disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (1999). An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” if it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 1520(c) (1999). ... At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ has an obligation to determine whether a claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Menezes argues that the ALJ should have combined his short-term injuries with his severe back impairment when determining his RFC. However, the Act, the SSA’s regulations, and relevant case law clearly state that unless an impairment lasts for a continuous period of twelve months, it cannot serve as a basis for a disability determination. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509; Maggard, 167 F.3d at 378. If an impairment cannot serve as a basis for a disability determination, it is reasonable for an ALJ to screen out that impairment before performing the RFC analysis.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to determine disability through a five-step sequence: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past work, and other work in the national economy.

Peterson v. Barnhart · filed 2002-07-25

The Commissioner follows a five-step analysis in determining whether a plaintiff is eligible for disability benefits under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. First, the Commissioner considers whether the plaintiff is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If she is not, the Commissioner next considers whether the plaintiff has a “severe impairment” which significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the plaintiff has such an impairment, the third step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the impairment is listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 of the regulations. If the impairment is listed, disability is presumed, and the plaintiff is considered unable to perform substantial gainful activity. Otherwise, the Commissioner proceeds to the fourth step and determines whether the plaintiff retains the residual functional -capacity to perform her past work. If she is unable to perform her past work, the final step requires the Commissioner to determine whether there is other work within the national economy that the plaintiff is qualified to perform.

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.

Ogden v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-23(c)

To be “severe,” an impairment must significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). “Basic work activities” are defined as “the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs,” and include physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling.” ... It is difficult to imagine that Plaintiffs weight, ranging from 270 to 300, on her 5'4" frame, would not be more than a slight abnormality, especially where the ALJ found her “waddling gait” was “not surprising given her weight at 274 pounds.”

After finding that a claimant has at least one severe impairment, the regulation requires the disability determination to continue through the sequential evaluation.

Howard v. SSA · filed 2021-08-05(a)(4)(ii)

Howard also argues that the ALJ erred in failing to find that his hernias or diabetes constitute severe impairments. The ALJ did find, however, that Howard had several severe impairments. Having made that determination, the ALJ was required to continue the sequential analysis to determine if Howard is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (iv). Thus, even if the ALJ erred by not including the hernias or diabetes as additional severe impairments, “the error is harmless as long as the ALJ found at least one severe impairment and continued the sequential analysis and ultimately addressed all of the claimant's impairments in determining [his] residual functional capacity.”

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine disability through five sequential steps: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Quinn v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-20(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

An ALJ must apply a five-step procedure when determining if an applicant is disabled. Smith v. Shalala, 987 F.2d 1371, 1373 (8th Cir. 1993). The steps are as follows: Step One: Determine whether the applicant is presently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Step Two: Determine whether the applicant has an impairment or a combination of impairments that are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). Step Three: Determine whether any of the severe impairments identified in Step Two match the listing in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). Step Four: Considering the applicant’s RFC, determine whether the applicant can perform any past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). Step Five: Determine whether any substantial gainful activity exists in the national economy that the applicant can perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five ordered steps, and the evaluation ends when the Commissioner conclusively finds the claimant disabled or not disabled at any step.

Kersey v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-24(a)

This process requires the Commissioner to consider, in order, whether a claimant 1) is working; 2) has a severe impairment; 3) has an impairment that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment; 4) can return to her past relevant work; and 5) if not, whether she can perform other work. ... If the Commissioner finds conclusively that a claimant is or is not disabled at any point in this process, review does not proceed to the next step.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability, including determining severity, considering listed impairments, assessing past relevant work, and considering other work in the national economy.

Letson v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-17(c), (d), (e), (f)

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations outlining a five-step process to guide an ALJ in determining whether an individual is disabled. First, the ALJ must determine whether the individual is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." If she is, then she is not eligible for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1520(b). If she is not, the ALJ must consider step two which asks whether the individual has a "severe impairment" that "significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant is not found to have a severe impairment, she is not eligible for disability benefits. If the claimant is found to have a severe impairment the ALJ proceeds to step three in which he must determine whether the impairment meets or is equal to one determined by the Commissioner to be conclusively disabling. If the impairment is specifically listed or is equal to a listed impairment, the claimant will be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If the impairment is not listed or is not the equivalent of a listed impairment, the ALJ moves on to step four which asks whether the claimant is capable of doing past relevant work. If the claimant can still perform past work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If the claimant cannot perform past work, the ALJ proceeds to step five in which the ALJ determines whether the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. In step five, the ALJ must consider the claimant's "age, education, and past work experience." Only if a claimant is found incapable of performing other work in the national economy will she be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); see also Bowen, 482 U.S. at 140-41, 107 S.Ct. 2287 (explaining five-step process).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a person is disabled.

Brank v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-22(a)(4)

In determining whether a person is disabled, the Commissioner is required to perform a five-step sequential analysis.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation, and a claimant who meets a listed impairment is deemed disabled without proceeding to later steps.

Ianni v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-18(b), (c), (d), (e), (f)

The federal regulations set forth a five-step analysis that the Commissioner must follow in determining eligibility for disability insurance benefits. ... Third, if there is an impairment and the impairment, or an equivalent, is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations and meets the duration requirement, the individual is deemed disabled, regardless of the applicant’s age, education or work experience, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d), as, in such a case, there is a presumption that an applicant with such an impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity. ... However, as a fourth step, if the impairment or its equivalent is not listed in Appendix 1, the Commissioner must then consider the applicant’s “residual functional capacity” and the demands of any past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... Finally, if the applicant is unable to perform any past work, the Commissioner will consider the individual’s “residual functional capacity,” age, education and past work experience in order to determine whether the applicant can perform any alternative employment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequence for the Secretary to evaluate disability claims.

Rivera v. Richard Schweiker, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-09-07

A five-step sequence, promulgated in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1981), is utilized by the Secretary in evaluating disability claims.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step process for evaluating disability claims, including consideration of whether the claimant has a listed impairment before assessing the final steps.

Spena v. Heckler · filed 1984-05-16

The regulations promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with the Act set forth a five step process for evaluating disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. This process has been interpreted as follows: ... The Secretary correctly applied the first two steps of this five step evaluation process. There is no evidence in the record, however, that the AU considered the third factor, ... whether plaintiff’s impairment was one of those listed in Part A of Appendix 1, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Sub-part P. If plaintiff’s impairment was in fact listed, he is considered “disabled per se” regardless of the findings with respect to the final two criteria.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process; a negative answer generally ends the inquiry, while an affirmative answer advances it to the next step or results in a disability finding at steps 3 or 5.

Catharine TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appell · filed 1984-07-20

Social Security regulations prescribe a sequential inquiry to be followed in determining whether a claimant is disabled. The following steps are addressed in order. (1) Is the claimant presently unemployed? (2) Is the claimant's impairment "severe?” (3) Does the impairment meet or exceed one of a list of specific impairments? (4) Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation? (5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work within the economy? An affirmative answer leads either to the next step or, on steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the claimant is disabled. A negative answer, at any point other than step 3, stops inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1983).

Section 404.1520 requires the SSA to evaluate disability claims through a five-part sequential test.

Frates v. Heckler · filed 1986-01-06

When evaluating a disability claim, the SSA applies the sequential five-part test embodied in the social security regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 prescribes a five-step sequence for evaluating disability claims.

Nally v. Heckler · filed 1986-02-14

Regulations promulgated under the Social Security Act, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, prescribe a five-step sequence for evaluating claims of disability.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process.

Vasquez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1986-04-23

The applicable regulations promulgated by the Secretary set forth a five-step sequence to be utilized in evaluating disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1985). ... However, as the Secretary himself acknowledges in his memorandum of law in support of his motion for remand, the AU failed to apply that procedure properly in evaluating plaintiff’s claim.

Section 404.1520(a) requires a five-step disability evaluation considering work activity, medical factors, and vocational factors, and evaluation ends when a dispositive decision is made at any step.

Hammerstone v. Heckler · filed 1986-04-17(a)

The next issue is whether the AU failed to properly use the vocational expert. The AU made his determination of disability based on the five step evaluation procedure required by the medical-vocational regulations promulgated by the Secretary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a); ... Under this regulation the AU considers current work activity, medical factors and lastly vocational factors. If a decision is made at any step of the evaluation further evaluation is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) and 416.920(a).

At the fifth step, when an impairment precludes past work, the decision-maker must consider factors including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity to determine whether the claimant can perform other work.

James H. HARVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-03-25(f)

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.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step disability analysis, including evaluating severity at step two and whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Maxmilliano VILLARREAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-02-09

The regulations instruct the ALJ to conduct a five step analysis in reaching a determination regarding disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. In this instance the ALJ acknowledged that Mr. Villarreal suffered a “severe impairment” from his uncontrolled diabetes. Although Mr. Villarreal was thus able to satisfy the “severity” requirement at the second step of the analysis, he failed to demonstrate, as the ALJ concluded, that he could no longer perform his past relevant light maintenance work at Manpower and as a gas station attendant. These findings, which have substantial support in the record, require that benefits be denied.

Section 404.1520 requires the sequential disability analysis to proceed to step five, considering whether a claimant who cannot return to past work can perform other jobs in the national economy.

Odierno v. Bowen · filed 1987-02-20(f)

On the basis of the exhibits and the testimony at both the initial and supplemental hearings, AU Portnoy should have concluded that Odierno could not return to work as a bartender and then have proceeded in his decision, as indeed he appeared to proceed at the November 6, 1984 supplemental hearing, to consider under the fifth step of the determination process whether Odierno could hold other jobs available in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential evaluation of disability claims, including automatic disability for a qualifying listed impairment and, if necessary, evaluation of past relevant work and other national-economy work.

Pfeister v. Bowen · filed 1987-11-10(a), (d), (e), (f)

The AU 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, app. 1; (4) if the impairment does not satisfy one of the listings, whether the claimant’s impairments prevent him from performing his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is incapable of performing 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, § 416.920. ... If the ALJ determines that the applicant suffers from a listed impairment and that the requisite duration requirements are met, the applicant must automatically be found disabled without consideration of his age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d), § 416.920(d). ... In the final two stages, the AU must determine whether plaintiff’s impairments prevented him from performing his past relevant work, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), § 416.920(e), and if so, whether the plaintiff could 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(f), § 416.920(f).

Section 404.1520(f) requires the step-five disability determination to consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience in deciding whether the claimant can perform other substantial gainful employment.

Kelsey v. Bowen · filed 1988-03-15(f)

At this step of the process, the decision must take into account the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, in order to determine whether he or she is capable of performing any other kind of substantial gainful employment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 426.920(f).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ reviewing a disability claim to use a five-step sequential decision-making process.

Spada v. Bowen · filed 1988-05-31

When reviewing a disability case, the ALJ must follow a five-step sequential decision-making process.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims, with the answers determining whether the claim advances, results in a disability finding, or results in a finding of no disability.

Cushman v. Bowen · filed 1988-04-14

In determining whether or not a claimant is disabled, the Secretary has adopted a five-step sequential evaluation process, which has been summarized as the following inquiry: (1) Is the claimant presently unemployed? (2) Is the claimant’s impairment “severe”? (3) Does the impairment meet or exceed one of a list of specific impairments? (4) Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation? (5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work in the national economy? An affirmative answer leads either to the next step, or on steps (3) and (5) to a finding that the claimant is disabled. A negative answer at any point other than at step (3) will lead to a finding that the claimant is not disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential analysis, including whether the claimant can perform past work or other work in the national economy.

Kathryn E. TRENARY, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1990-03-26

AU Goustin considered, and Magistrate Symchych reviewed, the appellant’s claim under the familiar five-step disability analysis established by regulation and approved by the Supreme Court. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; ... The point, of course, of that analysis is to ascertain whether Mrs. Trenary’s impairments prevented her from engaging in “substantial gainful activity.”

Section 404.1520 uses a five-step disability evaluation in which the claimant bears the burden through Step Four, the burden shifts to the Secretary at Step Five, and Steps Four and Five depend on residual functional capacity.

Gonzalez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1991-01-24

The first four steps must be proven by the claimant. The burden of proof at step five shifts to the Secretary. Steps Four and Five are based on an inquiry into a claimant’s Residual Functional Capacity, that ability to perform work which remains even after the limiting effect of impairments is taken into account.

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to use a five-step process to decide whether a claimant is disabled: current work, severity, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work.

Woods v. Sullivan · filed 1991-04-15

The Secretary must follow a five-step process when making a decision regarding disability. This process is described at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. First, is the claimant currently working? Second, does the claimant have a severe impairment? Third, does the impairment meet or equal an impairment listed at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Sub-part P, Appendix 1? Fourth, does the impairment prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work? Fifth, does the impairment prevent the claimant from doing any other work?

Section 404.1520 requires disability determinations to proceed through a five-step sequence, including separate findings on substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, past work, and other work.

James H. JONES, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1991-12-16

The Secretary’s regulations provide that a claimant will be considered disabled and receive benefits only if the claimant demonstrates that (1) he is not currently engaged in any substantial gainful activity; (2) he is severely impaired; and either (3) his impairment is listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1, in which case he is presumptively disabled, or (4) his impairment prevents him from meeting the physical and mental demands of the kind of job that he has held in the past, and (5) his impairment together with his age, education, and past work experience also prevents him from doing any other sort of work.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated in a set five-step order, with a not-disabled finding when the claimant can perform past relevant work and consideration of other vocational factors only if past work is precluded.

Thelma D. HOGG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appel · filed 1993-01-15(c), (e), and (f)

Federal regulations provide steps for evaluating a disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.-1520(a) and 416.920(a) (1992). A set order is followed to determine whether an individual is disabled. ... If it is determined that a claimant is or is not disabled at any point in the review, further review is not necessary. ... The sequence that the AU must consider is as follows: ... 2. an individual who does not have a “severe impairment” will not be found to be “disabled” (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c) (1992)); ... 4. if an individual is capable of performing the kind of work he or she has done in the past, a finding of “not disabled” must be made (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e) (1992)); ... 5. if an individual’s impairment is so severe as to preclude the performance of the kind of work he or she has done in the past, 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) and 416.920(f) (1992)).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps, and the evaluation may end at step two when the claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.

Henderson v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-06-28

The Secretary has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine if a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The five steps which the Secretary must consider are (1) whether claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment or combination of impairments is equivalent to one of a number of listed impairments so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity; (4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing work he performed in the past; and (5) whether claimant is able to do other work in the national economy in view of his age, education, and work experience. Id. §§ 404.1520(b)-(f), 416.920(b)-(f). ... Therefore, the ALJ concluded his inquiry at step two, determining that claimant did not have a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. Following a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the ALJ's determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for determining disability, progressing from current work and impairment severity through listed impairments, past work, and other work in the national economy.

Cashman v. Shalala · filed 1993-03-31(a)-(f)

In determining whether a claimant is "disabled” under the Act, the Secretary is required to engage in a five step analysis. ... The claimant will be entitled to benefits only if he is not able to perform this other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through the applicable five-step sequential process, including consideration of residual functional capacity at steps 4 and 5 when the claimant has no listed impairment.

Sajdyk v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1991-11-26(a)-(f)

Pursuant to statutory authority, 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(4), 1328c(a)(3)(D), the Secretary has promulgated regulations for determining whether an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(aHf), 416.920(a)-(f). Generally, the Secretary employs a five-step process to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. ... This case is thus REMANDED with orders that the Secretary consider Ms. Sajdyk’s residual functional capacity for substantial gainful activity (Steps 4 & 5). SO ORDERED.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability: substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairment, past work, and other work considering vocational factors.

Alexander v. Shalala · filed 1995-07-31(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

(1) An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful employment will not be found to be disabled regardless of medical findings (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b)); ... (2) An individual who does not have a “severe impairment” will not be found to be disabled (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)); ... (3) If an individual is not working and is suffering from a severe impairment which meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of Subpart P, a finding of disabled will be made without consideration of vocational factors (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)); ... (4) If an individual is capable of performing work he or she has done in the past, a finding of not disabled must be made (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(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)).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner bearing the burden at step five to show that other suitable work exists in the national economy.

Thompson v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-01-31

The ALJ follows a five-step evaluation of disability as set forth in the Social Security regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Under this analysis, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant: (1) is working, (2) has a severe impairment, (3) has an impairment that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment, (4) can return to her past work, and (5) if not, whether she can perform other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The burden of production and proof is on the claimant through the fourth step. At the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that other jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can do. Hunter, 993 F.2d 31, 35 (4th Cir.1992).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as not severe only if it does not significantly limit basic work activities and requires consideration of combined impairments; at step five, § 404.1520(f) places the burden on the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other work.

Catherine A. SMOLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1996-03-29(c), (f)

"At step two of the five-step sequential inquiry, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. ... According to the Commissioner's regulations, "an impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit [the claimant's] physical ability to do basic work activities," 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a)(1991). ... Important here, at the step two inquiry, is the requirement that the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant's impairments on her ability to function, without regard to whether each alone was sufficiently severe. ... Finally, the step-two inquiry is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims. ... An impairment or combination of impairments can be found "not severe" only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has "no more than a minimal effect on an individuals ability to work." ... By step five of the five-step sequential inquiry, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that, based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience, she can do other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 142, 107 S.Ct. at 2291-92, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If she can, she is not disabled; if she cannot, she is disabled."

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation of disability, including determining whether the claimant has a severe impairment; failure to make an explicit severity finding is harmless when the ALJ analyzes the later steps and the omission does not affect the outcome.

Bendt v. Chater · filed 1996-07-23

The Social Security Act sets out five steps for the ALJ to use when reviewing a claimant’s request for disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; ... First, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. Second, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is severely impaired. Third, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a substantial impairment that meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P., app. 1. Fourth, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s impairments keep him from doing past relevant work. Fifth, if an ALJ concludes that a claimant cannot return to his past relevant work, then the burden of proof shifts to the Secretary to prove that jobs existed in the national economy which plaintiff could perform. ... While the ALJ did not make any explicit findings regarding whether Bendt’s impairments were severe, he did make findings concerning the nature of his impairments. ... Therefore, although the Court notes that the ALJ failed to make explicit determinations regarding the severity of Bendt’s impairments in accordance with the applicable regulations governing the Act, this error did not affect the outcome of the case. ... As a result, the Court will not reverse the ALJ’s determination on this basis.

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

Mandziej v. Chater · filed 1996-09-24

In concluding that Mr. Mandziej was not disabled within the meaning of the Act, the AL J utilized the mandatory five-step sequential evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1995).

Section 404.1520 directs a five-step disability inquiry, including whether the claimant engages in substantial gainful activity, has a severe impairment, and can perform past relevant work.

Jorgensen v. Chater · filed 1997-04-02(b), (c), (e)

In evaluating the evidence, the ALJ followed the required five-step analysis for determining whether a claimant is disabled. See generally, 20 CFR Ch.111 §§ 404.1520, et seq. (4-1-95 Edition), and Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987); Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-752 (10th Cir.1988). Step one determines whether a claimant is presently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 CFR § 404.1520(b) If he or she is, benefits are denied. ... The second step is to determine whether there is “an impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits ... physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Age, education, and work experience are not considered at this step. 20 CFR § 404.1520(c). ... If the impairment is severe, but is not a listed impairment, the inquiry proceeds to a fourth step which requires a determination of the claimant’s “residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the work ... done in the past.” If the claimant can still perform her past work, she is not disabled. 20 CFR § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability determination process that does not consider how reasonable accommodation might affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Swanks v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 1997-06-20

The Social Security Administration, as authorized by the Social Security Act, ... has established a five-step process to evaluate whether a claimant is disabled. 20 CFR § 404.1520 (1996); ... Nowhere in this five-step process does the Social Security Administration take account of the possible effect of reasonable accommodation on a claimant’s ability to work. At step three, for example, claimants who are not working and who have listed disabilities automatically receive benefits. Steps four and five — the levels after which Swanks was awarded disability benefits — likewise do not consider reasonable accommodation.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including whether the claimant can perform past work and, if not, whether other work exists.

Plessinger v. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1997-06-30

The applicable regulations provide for a five-step evaluation to determine whether the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Halvorsen v. Heckler, 743 F.2d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir.1984). The first and second questions are whether the claimant is unemployed and has a severe impairment. The commissioner concedes that the answer to both these questions is yes, thereby requiring analysis at step three. The third question is whether the claimant's impairment meets or exceeds one of the impairments listed in the regulations. If the answer to this question is yes, then the claimant is deemed disabled and eligible for benefits. If the answer is no, the claimant might still be disabled; that determination requires answering questions four and five. ... However, we conclude that his findings at step four were insufficient with regard to her ability to perform her prior work not withstanding her assertion that she suffers from projectile vomiting, and therefore remand for additional proceedings.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step process for evaluating disability claims, with the burden shifting to the Commissioner at the fifth step to show that a claimant can perform other work.

Kendall v. Apfel · filed 1998-08-06

The first step of this process requires the [Commissioner] to determine whether the claimant is presently employed. If the claimant is not employed, the [Commissioner] then determines whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” that limits her capacity to work. If the claimant has such an impairment, the [Commissioner] next considers whether the claimant has an impairment that is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. When the claimant has such an impairment, the [Commissioner] will find the claimant disabled. However, if the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the [Commissioner] must determine, under the fourth step, whether the claimant possesses the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform her past relevant work, the [Commissioner] determines whether the claimant is capable of performing any other work. If the claimant satisfies her burden of proving the requirements in the first four steps, the burden then shifts to the [Commissioner] to prove in the fifth step that the claimant is capable of working.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation, with step five asking whether a claimant unable to perform past relevant work can perform other work in the national economy after consideration of residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Dwyer v. Apfel · filed 1998-10-19(f)

The regulations mandate that the ALJ follow a five step evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled. ... If the ALJ determines that the claimant cannot perform then-past relevant work, then at Step Five, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can do any other work. ... In making this showing the ALJ must consider the claimant’s RFC, age, education, past work experience, and transferability of skills to determine if the claimant can perform other work existing in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability through a five-step process.

Marks v. Apfel · filed 1998-07-09

The regulations of the Commissioner mandate that the ALJ follow a five step evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability through five inquiries, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or any other work.

Barton v. SSA · filed 1999-03-24

When determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ is required to make the following five inquiries: ... (4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... At step four of the seguential analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has carried her burden by demonstrating that she is incapable of performing her previous work.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to evaluate disability through a five-step sequence, shifting the burden to the Commissioner at step five to determine whether the claimant can perform other work.

Siedlecki v. Apfel · filed 1999-04-14(a)-(f)

The ALJ follows a five-step sequential process to determine whether an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). ... First, if the claimant is working, benefits are automatically denied. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, if a claimant is not ■ found to have an impairment which significantly limits her ability to work (a severe impairment), then she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Third, if an individual is not working and is suffering from a severe impairment, it must be determined whether she suffers from one of the listed impairments; if so, benefits are owing without further inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if an individual is not suffering from a listed impairment, it must be determined if the individual can perform work she has done in the past; if so, she is “not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). However, if an individual’s impairment is so severe as to preclude the performance of past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to determine, given other factors including age, education, past work experience, and RFC, whether or not the individual retains the capacity to perform a different kind of job. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step process, including determining whether the claimant is working, has a severe impairment, and meets a listed impairment before proceeding further.

Miles v. Apfel · filed 1999-06-16

Claims of disability are reviewed pursuant to a five step process. 20 CFR § 404.1520. The first step is the determination of whether the claimant is employed. The second step of the disability evaluation is the determination of whether the claimant has a “severe impairment.” Once a severe impairment is established, the Commissioner determines whether the impairment is one of the impairments listed in Appendix I of the Social Security Regulations. If the claimant suffers from such an impairment, a finding of disability follows.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step process for determining disability, including deciding at step four whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

French v. Apfel · filed 1999-07-14

The regulations of the Commissioner outline the steps that an ALJ must follow to determine whether or not an individual is disabled. ... In evaluating a claim for disability, the Commissioner follows a five-step evaluation process. ... Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant’s severe impairment, he [or she] has the residual functional capacity to perform his [or her] past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his [or her] past work, the [Commissioner] then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform. ... The claimant bears the burden of satisfying the first four prongs of the evaluation process.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequence for evaluating disability claims.

Craven v. Apfel · filed 1999-07-12

The Commissioner’s regulations set forth a five-step sequence to be used in evaluating disability claims.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability inquiry and places the burden on the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.

Clay v. Apfel · filed 1999-09-24(f)

Our detailed review of the authorities above cited by the ALJ in support of her step five determination discloses that the ALJ correctly applied these authorities and made an appropriate determination(s) thereunder based on the evidence of record. Accordingly, this court finds that the Commissioner has met the appropriate burden at step five of inquiry set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 1520(a) — (f), and that the ALJ’s decision on this issue is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled, beginning by deciding whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Blandford v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-04

Step One requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”). §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step process: assess substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and the claimant’s ability to perform other work.

Coyle v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-08

Step One requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”). § 404.1520(b). If a claimant is engaged in SGA, he will not be considered disabled. If the claimant is not engaged in SGA, Step Two requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant is found to suffer from a severe impairment, Step Three requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P. § 404.1520(d). If the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, the claimant is presumptively disabled. ... If the claimant is not presumptively disabled, at Step Four the ALJ must consider whether claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) precludes performance of their past relevant work. § 404.1520(e). If the ALJ determines that the claimant cannot perform their past relevant work, then at Step Five, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can do any other work. § 404.1520(f).

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

Smith v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-19

The regulations mandate that the ALJ follow a five step evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled.

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

Martone v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-21

The regulations mandate that the ALJ follow a five step evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled.

Section 404.1520 provides a five-step analysis for determining whether a claimant is disabled.

Chelte v. Apfel · filed 1999-11-24

The regulations provide a five-step analysis to evaluate whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1999).

Section 404.1520 sets out a five-step disability evaluation process covering substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other available work.

Wiekamp v. Apfel · filed 2000-09-29

In keeping with administrative regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly summarized the five-step disability evaluation process as follows: ... [The Commissioner] determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a "substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment-one that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and workexperience); (4) whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential analysis to determine disability, including deciding at step four whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Canfield v. SSA · filed 2001-04-19(e)

The Act directs an ALJ to apply a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a claimant is disabled.5 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. At step four of the process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairment prevents her from performing her past work. See id. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant's impairment prevents past relevant work by assessing the claimant's residual functional capacity and the demands of prior employment.

Ranfos v. SSA · filed 2002-01-24(e)

At step four, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's impairment prevents her from performing her past work. See id. § 404.1520(e). To make this determination, the ALJ must assess both the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), that is, what the claimant can do despite her impairments, and the demands of the claimant's prior employment. See id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); see also Santiago v. Sec'v of Health & Human Servs., 944 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, with the Commissioner bearing the burden at step five to show that the claimant can perform jobs available in the national economy.

Chulada v. SSA · filed 2002-01-31

In making his disability determination, the ALJ applies a five-step sequential analysis set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. In this case, the first four steps of that process are not in issue, so I proceed directly to an overview of step five. At this point in the process, the Commissioner must show that, despite the impairment or impairments which preclude the claimant from returning to his past relevant work, "there are jobs in the national economy that [the] claimant can perform."

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step analysis to determine whether a claimant is eligible for disability benefits.

Peterson v. Barnhart · filed 2002-07-25

The Commissioner follows a five-step analysis in determining whether a plaintiff is eligible for disability benefits under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.