20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

Section 404.1520 requires disability determinations to follow a five-step process considering work activity, impairment severity, residual functional capacity, past work, and adjustment to other work.

López Vargas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-08-07(a)(4)

(i)At the first step, we consider your work activity, if any. If you are doing substantial gainful activity, we will find that you are not disabled. (See paragraph (b) of this section.) (ii) At the second step, we consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). If you do not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that .meets the duration requirement in § 404.1509, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are not disabled. (See paragraph (c) of this section.) (iii) At the third step, we also consider the medical severity of your impairment^). If you have an impairment(s) that meets or equals one of our listings in appendix 1 of this subpart and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are disabled. (See paragraph (d) of this section.) (iv) 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. (See paragraph (f) of this section and § 404.1560(b).) (v) At the fifth and last step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your age, education, and work experience to see if you can make an adjustment to other work. If you can make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are not disabled. If you cannot make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are disabled. (See paragraph (g) of this section and § 404.1560(c).)

Section 404.1520 sets out a five-step inquiry for deciding whether a claimant is disabled.

Saxon v. Astrue · filed 2009-09-15

[The first step is] whether the claimant engaged in substantial gainful employment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If not, the analysis continues to determine whether, based upon the medical evidence, the claimant has a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(c). If the claimed impairment is sufficiently severe, the third step considers whether the claimant has an impairment that equals or exceeds in severity one or more of the impairments listed in Appendix I of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. Part 404, sub-part P, App.I. If so the claimant is disabled. If not, the next inquiry considers if the impairment prevents the claimant from returning to past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). If the answer is in the affirmative, the final consideration looks to whether the impairment precludes the claimant from performing other work.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate adult disability claims through a five-step inquiry.

Banks v. Astrue · filed 2010-11-30

An ALJ, tasked with evaluating a claim of disability, must conduct a five step inquiry to determine if the claimant—plaintiff—is, indeed, disabled as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether an individual is disabled.

House v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-23

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled as defined under the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 404.1520.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires a five-step sequential evaluation for determining disability.

Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-02-24(a)(4)

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

Section 404.1520 requires a five step disability evaluation, including assessment of residual functional capacity and past relevant work at step four.

Jones v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-16(a)(4)(iv), (e)

At Step Four, the ALJ must assess: (1) the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”); and (2) the claimant’s ability to return to her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). As for the claimant’s RFC, the regulations define RFC as that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). Moreover, the ALJ will “assess and make a finding about [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence” in the case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Furthermore, the RFC determination is used both to determine whether the claimant: (1) can return to her past relevant work under the fourth step; and (2) can adjust to other work under the fifth step…20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) sets out a five-step process for evaluating disability.

Carr v. Everett · filed 2021-06-24(a)(4)

The statutory social security regulations prescribe a five-step process to evaluate whether an individual is disabled. ... The officer adhered to a five-step process and properly found that Carr is not disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner bearing it at step five.

Liam S. v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-24

The ALJ must follow five steps in evaluating a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. First, if a claimant is working at a substantial gainful activity, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, if a claimant does not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, then she does not have a severe impairment and is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Third, if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if a claimant’s impairments do not prevent her from doing past relevant work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Fifth, if a claimant’s impairments (considering her residual functional capacity (“RFC”), age, education, and past work) prevent her from doing other work that exists in the national economy, then she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). Significantly, the claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, but the Commissioner bears the burden at step five. Wells v. Barnhart, 267 F. Supp. 2d 138, 144 (D. Mass. 2003) (five-step process applies to both SSDI and SSI claims).

At step two, the regulation requires evaluating the medical severity of impairments and treating an impairment as severe when it significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Ray v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-21(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must consider the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) (2019). To comply with this regulation, the ALJ “must determine whether any identified impairments are ‘severe’ or ‘not severe.’” Herrera v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 406 F. App'x 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c)). To evaluate whether a claimant’s medical condition qualifies as a “severe impairment,” the Commissioner has issued regulations that define a “severe impairment” as one that “significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (2020).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step process, and failure to classify an impairment as severe at Step Two is harmless when the claim proceeds and the impairment is considered at later steps.

Vernatter v. SSA · filed 2021-05-21

At Step Two, the ALJ is charged with determining whether any of a claimant’s impairments are “severe.” Walters, 127 F.3d at 529 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520). ... However, as the Commissioner correctly points out, the ALJ’s failure to consider Vernatter’s headaches as a severe impairment is not fatal because Vernatter’s claim was not denied at Step Two. ... Thus, even assuming that the ALJ erred in failing to consider Plaintiff’s headaches as severe, the error was harmless because the ALJ went on to consider both Plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments, including his headaches, in subsequent steps, (Tr. 84-87).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to proceed through five sequential steps, with the claimant’s residual functional capacity assessed after step three before evaluating past or other work at steps four and five.

Mahboub v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-01(a)(4), (e)

The Commissioner must use a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine eligibility for benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). ... When a claimant does establish disability at step three the ALJ must determine the extent to which he remains able to work – his residual functional capacity (“RFC”) – before proceeding to identify past jobs he can still do, at step four, or other jobs he remains capable of despite his limitations, at step five. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... The Court is confident that he properly applied the law and that his RFC findings as to Mr. Mahboub’s mental limitations are supported by substantial evidence, despite his findings at step three.

At step two, the claimant must have a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments meeting the duration requirement; failure to classify a particular impairment as severe is harmless when the ALJ finds another severe impairment, continues the sequential evaluation, and considers all impairments.

Hendricks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-31(a)(4)(ii)

At the second step in the sequential evaluation process, a claimant must demonstrate she suffers from a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement . . . or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); ... If the claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that satisfy the above requirements, the Administrative Law Judge will find the claimant is not disabled and deny the claim. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(4)(ii); ... Notably, the failure to find that a specific impairment is “severe” will be deemed harmless provided the Administrative Law Judge determines that the claimant has at least one severe impairment, continues with the sequential evaluation process, and considers all of the claimant’s impairments (severe and nonsevere) in the remaining steps.

Section 404.1520 requires a step-two determination of whether an impairment is severe; omitting an impairment at step two is harmless only if it is considered in the residual-functional-capacity determination and cannot affect the outcome.

FRIDAY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-08-31(c)

The error at step two is only harmless, however, where the ALJ has considered the missing medically determinable impairment in the RFC determination and it would not otherwise affect the outcome of the case. ... This is because the RFC assessment must take into consideration all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments in combination, including those that the ALJ has found to be severe, as well as those that the ALJ has not deemed to be severe at step two. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2) ... An impairment is “severe” under the regulations only if it “significantly” limits a claimant’s mental or physical ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two, an error in failing to identify an impairment as severe is harmless when the adjudicator considers the impairment's limitations at later steps and the error does not affect the ultimate disability determination.

Boulton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-29(a)(4)(ii)

Is the claimant’s impairment “severe” under the Commissioner’s regulations? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(a), 416.921(a). ... Even if the ALJ did err by not including “Neurocognitive Disorders” as a severe impairment at step two, the error was harmless. ... Additionally, the ALJ analyzed whether Plaintiff had neurocognitive limitations while developing Plaintiff’s RFC. ... In light of the state agency consultant’s conclusions and the fact that the ALJ performed an analysis of Plaintiff’s neurocognitive limitations despite not naming “Neurocognitive Disorders” as a severe impairment, any step two error is harmless.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) does not require remand for an impairment omitted at step two when the ALJ adequately considers that impairment in determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

WOLFF v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-02-16(a)(4)(ii)

The Court finds that the ALJ’s failure to consider Plaintiff’s cervical spine impairment at Step Two was harmless error. The ALJ adequately considered Plaintiff’s cervical spine impairment in determining her RFC.

At step two, an erroneous finding that an impairment is not severe is generally harmless when another severe impairment advances the claim and the omitted impairment’s limiting effects are considered later.

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

A finding that an impairment is not “severe” at step two is generally harmless if: (1) the ALJ finds that other impairments are severe, (2) step two is therefore resolved in plaintiff’s favor, and (3) the limiting effects of the non-severe impairment are then considered throughout the remainder of the sequential evaluation. ... Here, any error at step two was harmless.

At step two, the ALJ identifies severe impairments; omitting one is harmless when the ALJ finds other severe impairments and considers the omitted impairment throughout the remaining evaluation.

(SS) Kessler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-01(c)

At Step 2 of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines which of claimant's alleged impairments are “severe” within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... A finding that an impairment is not “severe” at Step Two is generally harmless if (1) the ALJ finds that other impairments are severe, (2) Step Two is therefore resolved in plaintiff's favor, and (3) the limiting effects of the non-severe impairment are then considered throughout the remainder of the sequential evaluation. ... Since Step Two turned in favor of the plaintiff, and the ALJ considered the non-severe impairments throughout the remainder of the evaluation, the undersigned finds any error at Step Two to be harmless error.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s nonsevere impairments at later steps once the claimant has a severe impairment; a mistaken severity finding is harmless if the ALJ does so.

Leibold v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-06(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ was not required to find that Leibold’s history of pulmonary embolisms was a severe impairment, but he was required to consider this condition at later steps in the sequential analysis.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for determining disability, including whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-12(a)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, Social Security regulations outline a five-step sequential process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f). The Commissioner must determine in sequence: ... (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing any work in the national economy. ... Therefore, the Commissioner failed to carry his burden at step five of showing the plaintiff could perform other work and the plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

At the fifth step of the disability evaluation, § 404.1520(f) shifts the burden to the Commissioner to prove that jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Vance v. SSA · filed 1997-06-18(f)

Once the claimant has demonstrated his inability to return to his job, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that other jobs exist in the national economy which the claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Ortiz v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 8 90 F.2d 520, 524 (1st Cir. 1989); Sherwin v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 685 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1982), cert, denied 461 U.S. 958 (1983) .

After the claimant establishes inability to perform his usual work, subsection (f) places on the Secretary the burden to show that the claimant can perform alternative work that exists in the national economy.

Keeney v. Heckler · filed 1983-08-10(f)

If such a showing is made, the Secretary must then show, “(1) that the claimant, considering his age, education, work experience, skills and physical shortcomings, has the capacity to perform an alternative job and (2) that his specific type of job exists in the national economy.”

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

Handelman v. Massanari · filed 2001-07-19(c)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Handelman was not severely impaired. A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant can perform work in the national economy consistent with the claimant's residual functional capacity.

Brown v. Massanari · filed 2001-10-15(f)

It is the Commissioner’s burden to show at “step five” of the review process that the claimant could perform any work in the national economy consistent with his residual functional capacity. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires determining whether the claimant's impairment prevents past relevant work by assessing the claimant's residual functional capacity and the demands of the prior employment.

Kinney v. SSA · filed 2002-06-20(e)

At step four of the process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairment prevents her from performing her past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). To make this determination, the ALJ must assess both the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), that i s , what the claimant can do despite her impairments, and the demands of the claimant’s prior employment.

At step four, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of past relevant work before deciding whether the claimant can return to it.

Quigley v. Barnhart · filed 2002-09-30(e)

Step four of the sequential analysis used in Social Security disability determinations requires the ALJ to review the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1990). “[T]he ALJ has a duty to fully investigate and make explicit findings as to the physical and mental demands of a claimant’s past relevant work and to compare that with what the claimant herself is capable of doing before he determines that she is able to perform her past relevant work.”

At the later disability evaluation step, the Secretary must show that a claimant who cannot do prior work can do less demanding substantial gainful work considering age, education, and work experience.

Pamela A. STONE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant · filed 1983-12-16(f)

The Secretary must show that claimants can do less demanding substantial gainful work, given their age, education, and work experience. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (1982).

Section 404.1520(e) requires a finding of not disabled when a claimant can still perform her past relevant work.

Beynum v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-13(e)

Step four determines if plaintiffs impairments prevent her from doing her past relevant work through the evaluation of the plaintiffs residual function capacity (“RFC”). RFC is defined in the regulations “as the most an individual can still do after considering the effects of physical and/or mental limitations that affect the ability to perform work-related tasks.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. If the claimant is not prevented from participating in past relevant work because of disorders, she will' not be considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e)-(f).

At step four, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity, including mental limitations, before deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Witt v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-22(f)

At Step 4, the ALJ must perform a RFC and mental RFC analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); SSR 96-8p. The RFC is the most a claimant can perform despite his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). If the claimant has more than one impairment, the ALJ will consider them all, regardless of whether they are classified as “severe.” ... An ALJ’s failure to explain how he arrives at an RFC is ground for remand. ... The ALJ’s mental RFC finding is insufficient.

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to decide whether the claimant can perform past work by assessing residual functional capacity and the demands of the prior job.

Brunei v. SSA · filed 2002-01-07(e)

At step four of the process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's impairment prevents her from performing her past work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). To make this determination, the ALJ must assess both the claimant's RFC, that is, what the claimant can do despite her impairments, and the demands of the claimant's prior employment. See id.; Santiago v. Sec'v of Health & Human Servs., 944 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

At step four, the agency must assess the claimant's residual functional capacity and past relevant work, considering impairments in combination, and determine whether the claimant can return to that past work.

Norris v. Apfel · filed 2000-04-28(a), (e)

The ALJ denied the claim at step four on the basis that claimant retained the RFC to return to any of four specific past jobs. See id. at 32, 33; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). For this conclusion to be valid, the agency requires the ALJ to have made specific findings concerning: (1) claimant’s RFC, (2) the functional demands of each of claimant’s past jobs, and (3) claimant’s ability to return to these past jobs with the RFC the ALJ determined the claimant to have. ... The ALJ is required to assess claimant’s impairments in combination. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). ... The ALJ did not address the impact of claimant’s vision impairments on his ability to perform work functions, including navigating safely at work. This was error. ... Because the ALJ’s RFC findings were incomplete, however, they cannot be matched with all of the functional demands of claimant’s past jobs. Further, because the ALJ’s findings as to the demands of claimant’s past jobs were conclusory, they cannot be matched to the record.

Section 404.1520(e) requires a specific step-four determination of the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work.

Rams v. Chater · filed 1997-12-11(e)

Step four of the sequential analysis requires a particularized inquiry into the physical and cognitive demands of plaintiff’s past employment. The regulations require that the decisionmaker determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) and the physical and mental demands of the work that the claimant has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At step four, a claimant who can perform her past relevant work is not disabled.

Vadeboncoeur v. Callahan · filed 1997-09-04(e)

If the claimant can perform her past relevant work, she will be found not disabled.

Section 404.1520(e) requires comparing a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the functional capacity required by past work; jobs with the same title are not the same kind of work when their exertional demands differ.

Rogers v. Schweiker · filed 1983-03-22(e)

The ALJ’s decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of “prior work” within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.-1520(e). This section directs the Social Security Administration to examine the claimant’s “residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands” of the claimant’s past work. This review is meant to lead to a comparison of a claimant’s current functional capacity and the functional capacity required in claimant’s previous jobs. A claimant may still do her prior work and is not disabled if she retains the functional capacity which her past work required. A claimant who no longer has the functional capacity that her prior work required cannot do the “kind of work” she has done in the past, within the meaning of section 404.1520(e). Two positions which share the same title and have certain activities in common are not the same “kind of work” where one requires a different functional capacity from the other.

Section 404.1520(e) requires evaluating the specific physical and mental demands of a claimant’s past relevant work and determining whether the claimant’s condition prevents performing the tasks involved.

Irvin v. Heckler · filed 1984-08-07(e)

Crucial to such a determination, however, is an evaluation of the specific physical and mental demands of plaintiff’s past relevant work, and a determination that plaintiffs condition does not prevent him from performing the specific tasks involved in such employment.

Section 404.1520(e) treats a claimant as not disabled at the past-work step when the impairment does not prevent her from doing past relevant work.

Elaine GRAY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1985-04-30(e)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), a claimant will not be considered disabled ... unless her impairment prevents her from “... doing past relevant work.”

At step four, the regulation requires the adjudicator to compare the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work.

Rose E. Brown v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1986-06-20(e)

In evaluating a claimant’s ability to perform “past relevant” work, the AU is obliged by the regulations to review the claimant’s “residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the work [the claimant has] done in the past.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... Ultimately, the AU must measure the requirements of the past work against the present capabilities of the claimant.

At the past-relevant-work step, determining residual functional capacity requires consideration of vocational factors, not medical evidence alone.

Velazquez v. Heckler · filed 1986-10-07(e)

The determination of a claimant’s residual functional capacity under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) is not based on “medical evidence alone” and therefore must take vocational factors into account.

At step four, past work is relevant only if it constitutes substantial gainful activity.

STOKES, Ellis, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1987-02-19(e)

To be “vocationally relevant” for purposes of § 404.1520(e), past work must constitute “substantial gainful activity.”

At step four, § 404.1520(e) denies benefits to a claimant with a severe impairment that is not per se disabling if the claimant can perform past relevant work.

L.B. LOVELACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-03-26(e)

Fourth, a claimant with a severe impairment that is not per se disabling is denied benefits if he is capable of doing past relevant work.

At the fourth step, § 404.1520(e) requires consideration of both the demands of the claimant’s past relevant work and the claimant’s present physical and mental capabilities.

Bauzo v. Bowen · filed 1986-10-17(e)

The Council was required to address two considerations in determining whether Bauzo could return to her past relevant work: (1) the demands and requirements of Bauzo’s past relevant work and (2) Bauzo’s present physical and mental capabilities.

At step four, past relevant work must have constituted substantial gainful activity when the claimant previously performed it.

Albert LAUER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-05-07(e)

We thus conclude that appellant is correct and that "previous work", in order to be considered "past relevant work", must first be found to rise to the level of substantial gainful activity.

Section 404.1520 uses a five-step disability process, and a claimant is not disabled at step four when she can still perform her past relevant work, so the agency need not determine whether she can perform other jobs.

Lyons v. Heckler · filed 1986-06-12

However, in this case the AU found that plaintiff was not disabled based on step four of the five-step process of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 as he determined that at all relevant times, plaintiff retained the ability to return to her past work as a sales clerk. Since it was found that plaintiff could perform the work which she had performed in the past, there was no need to determine whether there existed other jobs which plaintiff could perform.

At step four, § 404.1520(e) permits past work to count as past relevant work when it lasted long enough for the claimant to learn it, and three months was sufficient for this labelling job.

Leroy DUDLEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1987-02-25(e)

Moreover, given the relatively straightforward and uncomplicated nature of the work — putting labels on garments— we cannot say that the Secretary was unreasonable in assuming it could be adequately learned in three months in ordinary circumstances. Accordingly, we find substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s determination that the duration of claimant’s prior work as a labeller was sufficient for that work to constitute “past relevant work” for purposes of 20 C.F.R. § 404.-1520(e).

Subsection (e) uses residual functional capacity at step four to determine whether a claimant can perform her past relevant work.

Bell v. Bowen · filed 1987-03-31(e)

At step four, a determination of residual functional capacity is used to see if a claimant can still perform her “past relevant work.” ... But her past relevant work, at least in this circuit, is the work she has actually done, not the description following her job title in a standard reference work.

At step four, a claimant bears the initial burden to show that her impairments prevent her from performing her past relevant work; if she can still perform that work, she is not disabled.

Myrtelina Riestra Arroyo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-06-30(e)

Third, there is substantial evidence that the claimant did not meet her initial burden of proving inability to perform her former work. ... To claim disability benefits, a claimant must satisfy the initial and relatively minimal burden of "putting into issue functional loss that precludes performance of pertinent prior work activities." ... This means producing information describing the demands of claimant's past work, and showing how her limitations in the insured period compromised her ability to perform that work. ... It is not sufficient to assert some general, functional disability and then leave it to the government to present evidence as to the disability in terms of the requirements of the claimant's prior work. This is the claimant's responsibility. ... Given the dearth of information as to how she was functionally unable to perform her former work, so as to put inability to resume that work into issue for step four purposes, the ALJ could reasonably conclude that the claimant retained the ability to perform her former work during the insured period, and was not disabled.

At the fourth step of the sequential evaluation, the agency determines whether a claimant can perform past relevant work; when significant nonexertional limitations affect that determination, vocational-expert testimony is needed.

Joycelyn A. Rogers v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-11-18(e)

Upon review, we conclude that the Secretary's decision denying Rogers benefits at the fourth step of the sequential evaluation under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) is not supported by substantial evidence. ... The medical record establishes that Rogers's cervical disc disease and carpal tunnel syndrome result in a significant nonexertional limitation i.e., decreased ability to use her left upper extremity and hand. (See App. 155, 159-61, 205-208). VE testimony should be obtained where a claimant has significant nonexertional limitations. ... Furthermore, VE testimony is needed to clarify the job duties and requirements of Roger's past relevant work to determine if she can perform that work or other work which exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Subsection (e) requires the disability evaluation to determine whether a claimant’s impairment prevents performance of past relevant work.

Curtis v. Sullivan · filed 1992-11-30(e)

In step four, the AU must determine whether the claimant’s impairment prevented her from performing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires a disability claimant to establish that the claimant cannot perform past relevant work.

Cleaver v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1988-02-29(e)

In order to establish disability under the Social Security Act, a claimant must prove, among other things, an inability to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1981). A determination of a claimant’s ability to perform past relevant work involves an assessment of the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental requirements of the claimant’s former work.

At step four, the adjudicator must determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work by comparing that work's physical demands with the claimant's current mental and physical capabilities.

Claudio v. Bowen · filed 1988-06-13(e)

Step 4 of the Secretary’s sequential process requires the AU to determine whether Mr. Claudio is physically capable of doing his former work. That evaluation requires the AU to compare the physical demands of the claimant’s past relevant work with his present mental and physical capabilities.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the disability adjudicator to determine whether the claimant can still perform her past relevant work; if she can, she is not disabled at that step.

Lillie VEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-11-16(e)

In this case, we must focus, as did the A.L.J., on step four of the established five-step analysis in social security disability cases: “Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation?”

Section 404.1520(e) treats a claimant who can perform his past work as not disabled and therefore not eligible for disability benefits or supplemental income.

William J. HOPKINS, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1988-06-24(e)

The AU properly ruled that Hopkins was not disabled, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), 416.-920(e), and therefore not eligible for disability benefits or supplemental income.

At step four, the factfinder must compare the physical demands of the claimant’s past relevant work with her present mental and physical capacity.

Brita ARBOGAST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1988-10-26(e)

Here, the first three steps of the sequential inquiry are not in dispute. Accordingly, we proceed directly to step four: Is Mrs. Arbo-gast unable to perform her former occupation of beauty salon receptionist? ... This task necessarily entails a comparison of the physical demands of the claimant’s past relevant work with her present mental and physical capacity.

Section 404.1520(e) requires a finding of not disabled when a claimant can return to past relevant work.

Robert J. WARFORD, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1989-05-24(e)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1988), if appellant is able to return to his past relevant work, the AD must find appellant “not disabled”.

Section 404.1520(e) requires a claimant to be unable to return to her previous work activity to qualify for disability benefits.

June L. CABRNOCH, SSN: 484-72-6803, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1989-08-04(e)

To be eligible for benefits, a claimant must be unable to return to her previous work activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e) (1988).

At step four, the ALJ must review the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work.

Dorothy J. KIRBY, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1991-01-16(e)

Step four of the sequential analysis used in Social Security disability determinations requires the AU to review the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work.

At step four, a claimant is not disabled if the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform the actual functional demands and duties of a particular past relevant job.

Luz M. SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1991-05-28(e)

At step 4 of the sequential evaluation process, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), a claimant will be found not disabled when he or she retains the RFC to perform “the actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job.”

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires comparing the claimant's limitations with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work to decide whether the claimant can still perform it.

Squires v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1991-10-02(e)

As stated in Social Security Ruling (SSR) 82-62, "[e]valuation under sections 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e) of the regulations requires careful consideration of the interaction of the limiting effects of the person's impairment(s) and the physical and mental demands of his or her PRW [past relevant work] to determine whether the individual can still do that work."

At § 404.1520(e), a claimant who can still perform the same tasks required by her last job has not established disability at the past-relevant-work stage.

Wilson v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-03-10(e)

However, under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), since she can still perform the same tasks which she was required to perform on her last job, she has not shown herself to be disabled.

Section 404.1520(e) requires a disability claimant to establish that she cannot perform work she has done in the past.

Suranie v. Sullivan · filed 1992-03-25(e)

The portion of the test that is at issue in this case is whether the claimant is capable of performing work that she has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). In order to be considered disabled, the claimant must bear the burden of establishing that she is unable to perform such work.

At the past-relevant-work step, a claimant who can still perform the same tasks required by her last job has not shown disability.

Markarian v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-05-11(e)

However, under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), since she can still perform the same tasks which she was required to perform on her last job, she has not shown herself to be disabled.

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires determining whether a claimant can perform past relevant work, using vocational-expert testimony when nonexertional limitations make the work requirements unclear.

Young v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-06-23(e)

Upon review, we conclude that the Secretary's decision denying Young benefits at the fourth step of the sequential evaluation under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) is not supported by substantial evidence. ... The record contains insufficient vocational information regarding the nonexertional requirements of Young's past relevant work as a stencil maker. In addition, in view of Young's significant nonexertional limitations, VE testimony is needed to clarify the job duties and requirements of this work as actually performed by Young and as required by employers throughout the national economy.

At step four, the claimant must show that the impairment prevents past relevant work; the agency compares residual functional capacity with the demands of prior work and finds the claimant not disabled if the claimant can still perform that work.

Williams v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-08-13(e)

Step four of the sequential evaluation process is found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e): 54 Your impairment(s) must prevent you from doing past relevant work. If we cannot make a decision based on your current work activity or on medical facts alone, and you have a severe impairment(s), we then review your residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the work you have done in the past. If you can still do this kind of work, we will find that you are not disabled. 55 The Appeals Council determined that Williams' residual functional capabilities would not prevent him from performing the physical and mental demands associated with his previous duties as a security guard. This determination was based upon substantial evidence. 56 Williams testified as to his duties as a security guard. None of his responsibilities reached the level of medium work as defined by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c) (1991). Since the ALJ found Williams capable of medium work, Williams by definition retained the "residual functional capacity" to perform his past work as a security guard. "If the claimant is able to perform his previous work, he is not disabled." Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141, 107 S.Ct. at 2291. 57 The ALJ declined to proceed to the fourth step in Williams' case, citing this court's decision in Velazquez v. Heckler, 802 F.2d 680 (3d Cir.1986). Instead, the ALJ proceeded directly to step five to consider whether Williams could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The ALJ misinterpreted Velazquez. In Velazquez, this court held that under step four of the sequential evaluation process, the Secretary must consider vocational factors (age, education and work experience) in determining whether a claimant can do his or her past work. Id. at 682. The Secretary has since promulgated new regulations, which provide that, at step four, vocational factors are not considered in determining whether or not a claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b) (1991). The Appeals Council correctly found the ALJ's misinterpretation of Velazquez to be legal error.

At the mental-impairment step, the ALJ considers whether there is evidence of a mental disorder relevant to the claimant's ability to work.

Mennenga v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 2 · filed 1993-03-16(a)(2)

Notably, the fact that a person experienced depression or anxiety at any point during the years of being unemployed does not necessarily require the ALJ to find evidence of a mental disorder. Instead, the ALJ is only concerned with whether there is any evidence of a "mental disorder[ ] relevant to [the] ability to work." 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(2) (April 1992 ed.).

At step four, the claimant must show that her impairments prevent her from performing her former work, and the ALJ must compare that work's physical and mental demands with her functional capacity.

Maldonado v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-07-07(e)

Our focus is on step four of the Secretary's sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). At this stage, the initial burden is on the claimant to show that she can no longer perform her particular former work because of her impairments. Santiago v. Secretary of HHS, 944 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1991). Then, the ALJ must compare the physical and mental demands of that past work with current functional capability or, as here, functional ability in the critical period. Id.

Section 404.1520 uses a five-step sequential evaluation, and once a claimant can perform past relevant work at step four, the agency need not proceed to the next step of determining whether she can perform other work in the national economy.

Marie Fields v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-01-29

The ALJ did not go beyond Step 4 of the applicable procedure, and thus the Secretary is not required, as the claimant argues, to reach the next step and to show that she was able to perform other work found in the national economy.

At the past-relevant-work step, an applicant who could perform her past relevant work during her insured status is not disabled and is ineligible for disability insurance benefits.

Carter v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-10-14(e)

If the applicant could have performed her past relevant work during the time of her insured status, she is not disabled and therefore is ineligible for disability insurance benefits. Martin v. Sullivan, 901 F.2d 650, 653 (8th Cir. 1990); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1560(b) (1991).

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to compare the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of her past work.

Donna J. HENRIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1993-12-29(e)

In a step four proceeding, this duty requires the ALJ to review the claimant’s residual functional capacity “and the physical and mental demands of the work [she has] done in the past.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation, including a step-four determination of whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; if so, the claimant is not disabled.

Carey v. HHS · filed 1994-03-02(e)

Step 4 of the analysis requires the ALJ to determine if an impairment prevents claimant from performing her past relevant work. If claimant is still able to engage in work she has performed in the past, then she is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Goodermote v . Secretary of Health and Human Services, 690 F.2d 5 , 7 (1st Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... Applying this reasoning to the instant case, the ALJ employed an erroneous interpretation of prior work in characterizing her prior job as a receptionist's position. Had the ALJ correctly characterized claimant's past job at the bakery, she would have been required to find that claimant was unable to return to her past relevant work. Accordingly, claimant's case must be remanded so that the ALJ can conduct a Step 5 analysis.

At step four, § 404.1520(e) treats a claimant as not disabled if the claimant can perform past relevant work as generally performed in the national economy, even if the claimant cannot perform the actual demands of the particular past job.

Homer EVANS, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Appellee · filed 1994-04-14(e)

Therefore, even though Evans cannot perform the actual demands of his particular past relevant work, if the ALJ finds he can carry out his job as performed generally within the national economy, he is not disabled under the regulations.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ, when deciding whether an applicant can return to prior work, to directly compare the applicant's remaining functional capacities with the physical and mental demands of that work and make clear factual findings.

Latham v. Shalala · filed 1994-11-02(e)

Second, when making a finding that an applicant can return to his prior work, the ALJ must directly compare the applicant's remaining functional capacities with the physical and mental demands of his previous work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1994). He must make clear factual findings on that issue.

Section 404.1520(e) treats a claimant as not disabled when substantial evidence shows the claimant can perform past relevant work, so vocational testimony about other jobs is unnecessary.

McCormick v. Shalala · filed 1994-12-08(e)

Because the ALJ’s decision that McCormick could perform her past relevant work despite her physical and mental impairments is supported by substantial evidence, McCormick is not disabled under the Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Therefore, vocational expert testimony as to the availability of other jobs in the community also is not required.

Step Four requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant's impairment prevents performance of past relevant work.

Coventry v. HHS · filed 1995-03-27(4)

In Step Four, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's impairment prevents him from performing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(4) (1992).

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity and compare the claimant’s physical and mental impairments with the demands of past relevant work before finding the claimant can perform that work.

Dunn v. Shalala · filed 1994-11-09(e)

In evaluating a claimant’s ability to perform past relevant work, the Secretary’s regulations require the ALJ to review the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” for work activity. ... Without comparing claimant’s impairments — not just physically but also mentally — with the requirements of his past job, the ALJ could not legitimately conclude that plaintiff could perform the relevant work he had performed in the past.

Under § 404.1520, the past-work inquiry requires a claimant to show inability to return not only to the last job but also to the former type of work.

Murphy v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1994-12-11

Accordingly, our review of the record is limited to the ALJ’s findings that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing his incapacity to return to the “kind of work” he had done previously. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The reference to “kind of work” requires not only that plaintiff show an inability to return to his last job but also that he “is unable to return to his former type of work.”

Section 404.1520(e) makes Step Four turn on whether a claimant can perform her past relevant work, based on the work she has done in the past.

Stetler v. Shalala · filed 1995-03-21(e)

One prong of the Secretary’s two-prong Step Four evaluation is to determine the “work [claimant has] done in the past.”

Section 404.1520(e) evaluates a claimant's past relevant work both as the claimant actually performed it and as it is generally performed in the national economy.

Wells v. Chater, Comm's SSA · filed 1996-04-30(e)

A claimant's past relevant work is considered not only as the claimant actually performed i t , but as it is performed in the national economy. Parizo v . Secretary of Health & Human Servs., N o . 92-514-M, slip o p . at 6 (D.N.H. March 2 9 , 1994) (citing Santiago, 944 F.2d at 5 ; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); SSR 82-62).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine whether an impairment or combination of impairments prevents a claimant from performing past relevant work.

Kalar v. SSA · filed 1996-05-16(e)

At Step Four, the ALJ must determine whether an impairment, or combination of impairments, prevents the claimant from performing her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At step four, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work by considering her residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of that work.

Jones v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 1996-06-19(e)

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; ... The relevant step in this case is, step four in which the ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s impairments keep her from doing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... If the ALJ cannot make a decision based on current work activity or medical facts alone, he shall evaluate a claimant’s ability to do past relevant work based on a review of the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of her past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e); ...

Subsection (e) requires the ALJ, when necessary, to assess a claimant's residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of her past relevant work.

Jones v. Chater · filed 1996-06-19(e)

If the ALJ cannot make a decision based on current work activity or medical facts alone, he shall evaluate a claimant's ability to do past relevant work based on a review of the claimant's residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of her past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e); Nimick v. Secretary of Health and Human Svcs., 887 F. 2d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1989).

At step four of the disability evaluation, the ALJ must assess residual functional capacity, determine the physical and mental demands of past relevant work, and decide whether the claimant can meet those demands despite the limitations.

Winfrey v. Chater · filed 1996-08-07(e)

Step four of the sequential analysis, at which the ALJ found plaintiff not disabled, is comprised of three phases. In the first phase, the ALJ must evaluate a claimant’s physical and mental residual functional capacity (RFC), see SSR 86-8, Soc. Sec. Rep. Serv., Rulings 1983-1991, 423, 427 (West 1992), and in the second phase, he must determine the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). In the final phase, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has the ability to meet the job demands found in phase two despite the mental and/or physical limitations found in phase one. See SSR 82-62, Soc. Sec. Rep. Serv., Rulings 1975-1982, 809; Henrie v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 13 F.3d 359, 361 (10th Cir. 1993). At each of these phases, the ALJ must make specific findings. See Henrie, 13 F.3d at 361.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ, at step four, to determine the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work.

William T. WINFREY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1996-08-07(e)

In the first phase, the ALJ must evaluate a claimant’s physical and mental residual functional capacity (RFC), ... and in the second phase, he must determine the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires a claimant’s past relevant work to be evaluated both as the claimant actually performed it and as it is generally performed in the national economy.

Melanson v. SSA · filed 1996-10-21(e)

A claimant's past relevant work is considered not only as the claimant actually performed it, but as it is performed in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation, including a step-four determination of whether the claimant can perform past relevant work despite the impairment.

Mandziej v. SSA · filed 1996-09-24

Step 4 of the evaluation process reguires the ... ALJ to determine whether, despite the plaintiff's impairment, he retains the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform his past relevant work.

Section 404.1520(e) directs that a claimant is not disabled when the claimant retains sufficient residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work, and the claimant bears the burden of showing that an impairment prevents that work.

De La Vega v. Shirley S. Chater, Secretary, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-12-16(e)

A claimant will not be found disabled if he or she has sufficient residual functional capability to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e). All claimants, including those suffering from alcoholism, have the burden of showing that their impairment prevents them from performing their past work.

At the fourth step of the disability evaluation, the ALJ determines whether a claimant can perform past relevant work; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the evaluation need not proceed to whether the claimant can perform other work.

Osborn v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 1997-01-14(e)

In determining whether a claimant is eligible for disability benefits, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can do his previous job. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If a claimant can do past relevant work, the Social Security Administration will not consider him disabled, and the ALJ need not proceed to the next step of the disability evaluation to determine whether the claimant can perform other work.

Section 404.1520(e) requires a claimant to show that her impairment prevents her from performing her past relevant work, assessed by comparing the demands of that work with her present residual functional capacity.

Jewel Culver v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1997-06-23(e)

To determine whether the claimant has the residual capacity to return to her past relevant work, the ALJ "must ascertain the demands of the claimant's former work and then compare the demands with [her] present capacity." See id. at 797-98; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1997) (stating that impairment must prevent claimant from doing past work). ... Thus, the ALJ's conclusion that Culver's physical residual functional capacity did not preclude her from performing her past work is supported by substantial evidence and is not based on legal error. See Johnson, 60 F.3d at 1432.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At step four of the sequential evaluation, a claimant is not disabled if her impairment does not prevent her from performing past relevant work.

Loftus v. SSA · filed 1997-08-20(e)

Step four of the analysis reguires the ALJ to determine if an impairment prevents a claimant from performing her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (1997). If a claimant is still able to engage in work she has performed in the past, then she is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Goodermote v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 690 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1997).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ at step four to determine the demands of the claimant’s former work and compare them with the claimant’s present capacity.

Soria v. Callahan · filed 1997-09-12(e)

At step four, the ALJ is obliged to ascertain the demands of the claimant’s former work and to compare those demands with present capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir.1986). The ALJ fulfilled that obligation in this ease.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability analysis and, at Step Four, treats a claimant as not disabled when the impairment does not prevent performance of past relevant work.

Clarence WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1997-10-15

In making a determination as to disability under the above definition, an ALJ is required to follow a five-step sequential analysis set out in agency regulations. Our focus will be on Step Four. ... 4. If claimant’s impairment does not prevent him from doing his past relevant work, he is not disabled. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1997); ... Thus, the Commissioner’s denial of Walters’s disability claim at Step Four is proper if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion that Walters could perform his past relevant work and had therefore failed to make a prima facie ease of being under a disability.

Section 404.1520(e) provides that a claimant is not disabled when the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work.

Jensen v. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1997-10-23(e)

A claimant will not be found disabled if he has sufficient residual functional capability to perform his past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1997). ... The ALJ's finding that Jensen's impairments do not prevent him from returning to his past relevant work is supported by substantial evidence. See DeLorme, 924 F.2d at 846.

At this step, a claimant is not disabled if the evidence shows that the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Rawson v. John J. Callahan , Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1997-11-21(e)

Accordingly, because substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's finding that Rawson could perform past relevant work, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for the Commissioner. See Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1279; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant's impairment prevents performance of past relevant work by comparing the claimant's RFC with the demands of those occupations; if the RFC permits past relevant work, the claim is denied.

Baird v. SSA · filed 1998-03-24(e)

At step four of the reguired analysis, an ALJ determines whether an impairment would prevent a claimant from performing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). To do so, the ALJ assesses: (1) the claimant's RFC -- i.e., what she can do despite her impairment; and (2) the demands of any of the claimant's past relevant occupations. See id. If the ALJ finds that the claimant's RFC does not prevent her from doing her past relevant work, then the claimant is held able to work and the claim is denied. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §404.1560(b).

At step four, whether a claimant can perform past relevant work may be determined without vocational-expert testimony.

London v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1998-05-14

The inquiry whether a claimant may perform his past relevant work, which is step four of the five-step sequential evaluation prescribed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, does not require the use of vocational testimony. See Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir.1996).

At step four of the sequential evaluation, § 404.1520(e) requires determining whether the claimant can return to past relevant work; if not, the evaluation proceeds to whether the claimant can perform other work.

Creech v. Apfel · filed 1998-06-29(e)

If the claimant’s condition does not meet or equal the requirements for any listed impairments, he or she cannot be considered disabled based upon medical facts alone. As such, step four requires a determination of whether the claimant is able to return to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e) (1996). If claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, then the fifth and final step is an inquiry into claimant’s ability to perform other work in the national economy, considering his or her age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f) (1996). Claimant, then, is only entitled to benefits if unable to perform other work. Id. ... The burden is upon Plaintiff to demonstrate that they can no longer perform their past relevant work. ... Plaintiff here has not met this burden. ... This Court therefore, after careful examination of the record and findings of the ALJ, finds that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that Plaintiff has the ability to work as a cook or waitress, as well as limiting Plaintiffs residual functional capacity to light exertional requirements.

At step four of the disability evaluation, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's impairments prevent performance of past relevant work.

Elliott v. SSA · filed 1998-09-29(e)

At step four, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's impairments prevent him from performinq his past work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

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

Emde v. SSA · filed 1998-12-08(e)

At step four of the analysis, the ALJ must determine whether an impairment would prevent a claimant from performinq her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The ALJ must assess both the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC") -- i.e., what the claimant can do despite her impairments -- and the claimant's past relevant work experience. See id.; see also Santiago v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 944 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1991). If the ALJ finds that the claimant's RFC does not prevent her from doinq her past relevant work, then the ALJ must hold that the claimant is able to work and deny her claim.

At step four, a claimant is not disabled if the claimant fails to prove that the claimant's impairments prevent performance of past relevant work.

Nichols v. Apfel · filed 1999-03-15(e)

At step four, a social security claimant bears the burden of proving that his medical impairments prevent him from returning to his past relevant work. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). A claimant is therefore not disabled if he fails to prove that he does not retain the RFC to perform the duties of his past work.

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant's impairment prevents performance of past relevant work by assessing residual functional capacity against that work; if it does not, the claim must be denied.

Mason v. SSA · filed 1999-04-20(e)

At step four of the analysis, the ALJ must determine whether an impairment would prevent a claimant from performinq her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The ALJ must assess both the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC") -- i.e., what the claimant can do despite her impairments -- and the claimant's past relevant work experience. See id.; see also Santiago v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 944 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1991). If the ALJ finds that the claimant's RFC does not prevent her from doinq her past relevant work, then the ALJ must hold that the claimant is able to work and deny her claim. See id.; 20 C.F.R. §404.1560(b).

Section 404.1520 uses a five-step sequential evaluation; at step four, a claimant who can perform past relevant work is not disabled, so the agency need not reach step five.

Mullin v. Apfel · filed 2000-01-07(e)

Step four — does the claimant retain the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work? 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If Yes, claimant is not disabled. Step 5 — considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience, is the claimant capable of performing other work that exists in the national or regional economies? 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If No, the claimant is disabled.

Section 404.1520 treats a claimant who can perform past work, considering residual functional capacity and the work's physical and mental demands, as not disabled at step four.

Priest v. Apfel · filed 2000-07-07(e)

If it does not, however, the evaluation proceeds to the next step which inquires into whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing his or her past work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the claimant is able to perform the previous work, in consideration of the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC) and the physical and mental demands of the past work, the claimant is not disabled. See id.

At step four, the ALJ must assess impairments in combination and make specific findings about residual functional capacity, the demands of past relevant work, and the claimant’s ability to return to that work.

Norris v. Apfel · filed 2000-04-28(e), (a)

The ALJ denied the claim at step four on the basis that claimant retained the RFC to return to any of four specific past jobs. See id. at 32, 33; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). For this conclusion to be valid, the agency requires the ALJ to have made specific findings concerning: (1) claimant’s RFC, (2) the functional demands of each of claimant’s past jobs, and (3) claimant’s ability to return to these past jobs with the RFC the ALJ determined the claimant to have. ... The ALJ is required to assess claimant’s impairments in combination. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). ... The ALJ’s conclusory and incomplete findings in this case are insufficient.

Section 404.1520 treats a claimant who can perform past relevant work, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the work’s demands, as not disabled; only a claimant unable to perform past work proceeds to the next step.

Priest v. Apfel · filed 2000-07-07(e)

If the claimant is able to perform the previous work, in consideration of the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC) and the physical and mental demands of the past work, the claimant is not disabled. See id. If the claimant cannot perform his or her previous work, the final step involves a determination of whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy taking into consideration the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). ... Thus, to affirm the ALJ's decision this court must determine whether substantial evidence exists to support the finding that Plaintiff can perform his past relevant work as an assembly line worker as that job is generally performed throughout the national economy. Key to this analysis is whether the ALJ properly defined Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC).

At step four, the claimant must show that the impairment prevents past relevant work, and the ALJ must determine an accurate RFC based on all relevant evidence before deciding whether the claimant can perform that work.

Converse v. Apfel · filed 2000-11-29(e)

Step 4 requires the claimant to show that he cannot perform his past relevant work. ... However, Converse’s contention that he cannot perform his past work cannot be properly evaluated until the ALJ determines a RFC based on the entire report submitted by Mr. Carney. ... Thus, before the ALJ can determine whether step four is met he must determine Converse’s RFC which includes a discussion of all relevant portions of Mr. Carney’s report. This is not to say that the burden of proof changes to the Commissioner but rather that an accurate RFC is needed to determine whether Converse can in fact perform his past relevant work.

At step four, disability evaluation compares residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of the claimant's past work.

Porter v. Apfel · filed 2001-02-28(e)

When evaluating a disability, residual functional capacity, (RFC), is reviewed along with the physical and mental demands of past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) permits an ALJ determining a claimant’s past relevant work to rely on general descriptions of that work in the national economy or on the claimant’s description of the work performed.

Robinson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2001-03-19(e)

In determining what the past relevant work entailed, the ALJ may rely on general descriptions of that type of work in the national economy, or the claimant’s descriptions of the past work he performed.

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires the Commissioner to assess whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work, considering a composite job as a whole rather than selected duties.

Bechtold v. Massanari · filed 2001-05-10(e)

Step four of the sequential evaluation of disability requires the Commissioner to determine whether, despite the presence of a severe impairment, the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work. ... Where it is clear that a claimant’s past employment was a “composite job,” ... an administrative law judge may not find a claimant capable of performing her past relevant work on the basis that she can meet some of the demands of her previous position, but not all of them.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ at step four to examine the claimant's residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant's past relevant work.

Lewis v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-03-01(e)

The ALJ had the duty "to make the requisite factual findings to support his conclusion." Id. This required the ALJ to examine Lewis's "`residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands'" of Lewis's past relevant work. Id. at 844-45 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e)).

At step four, the claimant must show that an impairment prevents performance of previous work, and the ALJ evaluates that issue by comparing residual functional capacity with the demands of past work.

Ramos v. SSA · filed 2002-04-30(e)

The ALJ must determine whether the claimant's impairment prevents him from performing his past work based on the claimant's residual functional capacity and the demands of the claimant's past work.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ at step four to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of past relevant work before deciding whether the claimant can perform that past work.

Quigley v. Barnhart · filed 2002-09-30(e)

Step four of the sequential analysis used in Social Security disability determinations requires the ALJ to review the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1990). “[T]he ALJ has a duty to fully investigate and make explicit findings as to the physical and mental demands of a claimant’s past relevant work and to compare that with what the claimant herself is capable of doing before he determines that she is able to perform her past relevant work.”

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to find a claimant not disabled at step four when the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Sanchez-Wentz v. Barnhart · filed 2002-08-23(e)

Step four requires the ALJ to determine whether the impairment or impairments prevent the claimant from engaging in past relevant work. ... § 404.1520(e). If the claimant is able to perform any past relevant work, the ALJ will find that the claimant is not disabled. ... The ALJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff could return to her past relevant work means that the plaintiff was found to be not “disabled” at step four of the five-step analysis described in Part II of the memorandum. ... I find that the ALJ’s step -four determination that the plaintiff was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the ALJ’s failure to gather evidence relevant to step five of the analysis is inconsequential.

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires determining whether a claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Johnson v. Comm Social Security · filed 2003-01-29(e)

At step four of the evaluation process, an ALJ determines whether a claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work – either as she performed it or as it exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires determining at Step Four whether a claimant's severe impairment leaves her unable to perform the kind of work she performed in the past.

Gist v. Comm Social Security · filed 2003-04-24(e)

At Step Four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant’s severe impairment renders her functionally incapable of performing the kind of work she performed in the past. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(e), §416.920(e). We have reviewed the administrative record in the instant case and find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that the claimant is capable of resuming her past work.

At step four, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairments prevent her from performing past work by considering her residual functional capacity and the demands of that past work.

Rallis v. Social Security Admin. · filed 2004-01-20(e)

The ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairments, as presented in the record, prevent her from performing her past work based on her RFC and the demands of her past work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) & § 404.1545(a); see also Santiago, 944 F.2d at 7 .

At step four, the regulation requires assessing whether a claimant worked long enough at a job to learn its essential duties, without a fixed minimum duration for brief work experience.

Faison v. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-29(e)

Step four’s scheme, in contrast, offers no litmus test-for.measuring if a “brief’ work experience is too brief to count. Instead, the ALJ only decides if the claimant had worked “long enough” at the job to learn its essentials.

At step four, a claimant may be found not disabled only when the ability to perform past relevant work is assessed using the claimant’s actual past job or the job as generally performed in the economy, rather than a broad generic job classification.

Woody v. Barnhart · filed 2004-07-06(e)

Accordingly, SSR 82-61’s policy statement is that under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) and § 416.920(e), a claimant will be deemed “not disabled” only when one of the two latter tests is used.

At step four, the ALJ must compare a claimant's residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of her past relevant work.

O'HALLORAN v. Barnhart · filed 2004-07-07(e)

In order to determine whether an impairment prevents a claimant from performing her past work, the ALJ is required to review the plaintiffs residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the work she has done in the past.

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires consideration of the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of past relevant work to determine whether she can perform that work as actually done or generally performed in the national economy.

Shafer v. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-13(e)

The Commissioner examines the claimant’s “residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands” of the claimant’s past relevant work, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), at step four of the sequential process. To find that the claimant is not disabled at step four, she must be able to perform either (1) the actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job; or (2) the functional demands and job duties of the occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national economy.

At the fourth step, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work despite the impairment.

Hennes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2005-05-03(e)

The Social Security regulations provide a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining if a claimant has proven that she is disabled. ... If a claimant does not have a listed impairment, the ALJ—at the fourth-step of this evaluation process—must assess the claimant’s RFC and determine whether the claimant can perform her past relevant work, despite her impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If the claimant can return to her past relevant work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) & (f).

Section 404.1520(f) requires the Commissioner to determine whether a claimant’s residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work; if the claimant can perform that work, the claimant is not entitled to disability insurance benefits.

Scatorchia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-06-15(f)

In step four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant retains what is called the residual functional capacity to perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant remains able to perform that past relevant work, he or she is not entitled to disability insurance benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... It was therefore proper for the ALJ to accord only limited weight to Scatorchia’s testimony as to her subjective symptoms when the ALJ determined her residual functional capacity pursuant to step four.

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant who does not have an impairment that meets or exceeds a Listing to show that she is unable to perform her past relevant work to establish disability.

Johnson v. Barnhart · filed 2005-06-29

Because the evidence established, and Johnson does not contest, that she did not have an impairment that met or exceeded a Listing, Johnson was required to show that she is unable to perform her past relevant work to establish her disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 permits a finding of no disability when a claimant can perform past relevant work as previously performed or as generally performed in the national economy.

Wack v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-02(f)

A finding of "not disabled” may be based on the claimant’s ability to perform past relevant work either as he performed it in the past, or as that work is generally performed in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

At step four, the claimant must show that the impairment prevents performance of past relevant work as the claimant actually performed it.

Rogers v. Barnhart · filed 2007-02-02(a)(4)(iv)

The appropriate inquiry at step four of the evaluation process is whether the claimant’s past relevant work would, as he performed it, permit him to perform it with his current impairment. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Rogers could perform his past relevant work as a self-employed machine shop operator.

At step four, the regulation requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant can perform the physical and mental demands of past relevant work by assessing the demands of the claimant's former work against her present physical capacities.

Ruiz v. Barnhart · filed 2006-10-30(e)

To determine whether a claimant is physically capable of returning to her former work, the ALJ must ascertain the demands of that work in relation to the claimant’s present physical capacities. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(f)'s fourth step requires the ALJ to assess a claimant's residual functional capacity to determine whether the claimant can still perform past relevant work, while the claimant bears the burden of showing that he cannot.

Marvin L. Battle, Sr. v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-01(f)

At the fourth step, the claimant bears the burden of demonstrating that he cannot return to his past relevant work. ... The ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work despite his impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); see also Crayton, 120 F.3d at 1219. To support a conclusion that the claimant is able to return to his past relevant work, the ALJ must consider all the duties of that work and evaluate the claimant’s ability to perform them in spite of his impairments. See Lucas, 918 F.2d at 1574.

At step four of the disability evaluation, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to consider whether the claimant's impairments prevent performance of past relevant work.

Wagner v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-24(e)

"The Social Security Act sets out five steps for the ALJ to use when reviewing a claimant's request for disability." Jones v. Chater, 86 F.3d 823, 826 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing 20 C.F.R. §404.1520). "The relevant step in this case is step four in which the ALJ must consider whether a claimant's impairments keep her from doing past relevant work." Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e)).

Section 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits her to perform her past relevant work.

Burger v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-12(f)

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations establishing a fivestep sequential evaluation process for the ALJ to follow in a disability case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... In the Fourth Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has sufficient residual functional capacity despite the impairment or various limitations to perform her past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). if not, in Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

At step four, § 404.1520(e) asks whether, despite severe impairments, a claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work.

Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-03-20(e)

At step four, the Commissioner determines whether, despite her severe impairments, the claimant retains the RFC to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), (f), 416.920(e), (f).

At step four, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work.

Garibay v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-07-13(a)(4)(iv)

At Step 4, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant retains the RFC to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

At the fourth step of disability evaluation, the ALJ compares the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work.

GRBA-CRAGHEAD v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-28(f)

The ALJ will review a claimant's residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the work the claimant has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) places the past-relevant-work inquiry at step four: if a claimant cannot meet or equal a Listing, the claimant must show an impairment that prevents performance of past relevant work.

Moreno v. Comm. Michael J. Astrue · filed 2010-02-12(a)(4)(iv)

The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step process used to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Under the first step, the claimant has the burden to show that she is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). Next, the claimant must show that she has a severe impairment. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). She then must attempt to show that the impairment meets or equals the criteria contained in one of the Listings of Impairments. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant cannot meet or equal the criteria, she must show that she has an impairment which prevents her from performing her past relevant work. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Once a claimant establishes that she cannot perform her past relevant work due to some severe impairment, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy which the claimant can perform. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v); Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1239 (11th Cir. 2004). ... The present inquiry concerns the fourth step of the sequential evaluation process – whether the substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Moreno could perform her past relevant work. At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC and a claimant’s ability to do past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

At step four, the regulation requires a claimant to show that she cannot perform her past kind of work as generally performed in the national economy, not merely a specific job she previously held.

Klawinski v. Commr. of Social Security · filed 2010-08-06(e)

Specifically, “[t]he regulations require that the claimant not be able to perform his past kind of work, not that he merely be unable to perform a specific job he held in the past.” Id. at 1293 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e) (1986)). Accordingly, where the claimant’s specific prior job might have involved functional demands and duties significantly in excess of those generally required for such work by employers in the national economy, the claimant must still demonstrate that, in addition to being unable to perform the excessive functional demands actually required by her former job, she cannot perform the functional demands and job duties of the position as generally required by employers nationwide. SSR 82-61 (1982).

At step four, a claimant must show that she cannot perform her past kind of work as generally performed, not merely the specific job she previously held.

Klawinski v. Commr. of Social Security · filed 2010-08-06(e)

Specifically, “[t]he regulations require that the claimant not be able to perform his past kind of work, not that he merely be unable to perform a specific job he held in the past.” Id. at 1293 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e) (1986)).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the Commissioner at step four to determine whether, despite the claimant’s impairments, she can perform her past relevant work.

Costa v. SSA · filed 2010-11-03(a)(4)(iv)

In general, at the fourth step of the process, the Commissioner considers whether, despite her impairments, the claimant is able to return to her past relevant work. ... The court agrees with Costa that the ALJ erred because he improperly ignored a treating source’s opinion in direct conflict with his final determination that Costa was capable of “almost a full range of light work that is only reduced by a need to avoid smoky environments.”

Section 404.1520 requires the administrative law judge, at step four, to determine whether the claimant can perform his previous work despite his limitations; if he can, the disability inquiry ends.

Spiva v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-06(a)(4)(iv)

An administrative law judge is required to determine (at what is called “stage four” of the Social Security Administration’s disability algorithm) whether, despite his limitations, the applicant for benefits can do his previous work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), (f); Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923, 925 (7th Cir. 2010). If so, that’s the end of the case. And that’s the point at which the administrative law judge stopped in this case. She made no finding concerning what jobs Spiva might be capable of doing besides his previous one (which was never precisely defined) and how many such jobs might be available in the Milwaukee area.

At step four, the claimant must show that an impairment prevents her from performing her former work, and the Commissioner must compare the demands of that past work with her current functional capacity.

Mercado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-12-01(e)

The finding of the commissioner reflects an application of step four of the sequential evaluation process. ... At step four the initial burden is on the claimant to show that she can no longer perform her former work because of her impairment(s). ... Thence, the Commissioner must compare the physical and mental demands of the past work with the current functional capability.

At step four, the ALJ must assess the claimant's residual functional capacity and ability to return to past relevant work.

Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-09-07(a)(4)(iv)

“At the fourth step, the ALJ must assess: (1) the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”); and (2) the claimant’s ability to return to her past relevant work.” Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv)). ... We conclude that the ALJ properly considered Scott’s residual functional capacity and her ability to return to her past relevant work in assessing her eligibility for benefits.

At step four, a claimant must show that he cannot perform his past relevant work both as he actually performed it and as that kind of work is generally performed in the national economy.

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

The claimant bears the burden of showing that he cannot perform his past work as he actually performed it and as it is generally performed in the national economy. See Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 82-61, available at 1982 WL 31387; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). We have construed those regulations to require that a claimant prove that he is not able to “perform his past kind of work, not that he merely be unable to perform a specific job he held in the past.”

At step four, the claimant’s residual functional capacity is judged against the work the claimant has done in the past, not an abstract notion of competitive employment.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-06-01(a)(4)

Indeed, at the fourth step of the process, the claimant’s RFC is judged in relation to the work that the claimant has done in the past, and not to an abstract notion of “competitive employment.” See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

At step four, § 404.1520(f) requires comparing the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work; a claimant who can perform that work is not disabled.

RaShina Young v. Astrue · filed 2013-01-02(f)

At the fourth step in the five-step sequential evaluation process for determining eligibility for social security benefits, an ALJ compares a claimant’s RFC assessment “with the physical and mental demands of [the claimant’s] past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If the ALJ determines the claimant can perform her past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. See id.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) directs the Step Four inquiry to whether a claimant’s severe impairments prevent her from performing her past relevant work; impairments found non-severe at Step Two need not be evaluated again at Step Four.

Cichocki v. Astrue · filed 2013-09-05(a)(4)

At Step Four, however, the ALJ is instructed to consider the effect of a claimant’s severe impairments on her capacity to perform former relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Having determined at Step Two that Cichocki’s bipolar disorder did not constitute such an impairment, the ALJ did not err in failing to assess the impact of this disorder at Step Four.

At step four, disability turns on whether the claimant's specific functional limitations prevent performance of past relevant work; a severe impairment finding at step two merely permits the sequential evaluation to continue.

Banks v. Astrue · filed 2013-12-10

To find a disability at step four, on the other hand, requires that the claimant’s specific functional limitations are such that she is unable to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Thus, a step-two determination that Banks’ mental impairment is “severe” only allows the sequential process to proceed; it does not reflect the severity of her functional limitations relevant to step four.

Section 404.1520(e) treats a claimant as not disabled when the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Dumas v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-29(e)

“A claimant capable of performing past relevant work is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & 416.920(e). The claimant bears the burden of proving his or her inability to perform past relevant work.”

At step four, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) provides that a claimant is not disabled if she can return to her past relevant work.

Eyre v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2014-09-30(a)(4)(iv)

A claimant will be found not disabled if she can return to her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) provides that a claimant is not disabled if she can return to her past relevant work.

Eyre v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2014-09-30(a)(4)(iv)

A claimant will be found not disabled if she can return to her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the disability adjudicator at step four to assess whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work, considering both the prior specific job and the work as generally performed.

Fiedler v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-30(a)(4)(iv)

At step four in the five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ must consider whether the plaintiff has the RFC to perform his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). In order to survive step four, “the claimant has the burden to show an inability to return to her previous specific job and an inability to perform her past relevant work generally. This inquiry requires separate evaluations of the previous specific job and the job as it is generally performed.” ... The ALJ’s finding that the Plaintiff could perform this past relevant work as a writer as generally performed was sufficient to negate a finding of disability at step four.

Section 404.1520's fourth step asks whether an impairment prevents a claimant from performing past relevant work; if the claimant can still perform that work, the claimant is not disabled.

Ruffin v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr · filed 2015-07-20

Appellant’s claims hinge on the fourth inquiry in the disability analysis: whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; if not, the claimant is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. We hold that the Commissioner’s finding of not disabled due to Ruffin’s ability to still perform his past relevant work is supported by substantial evidence, as the record contains objective medical evidence bolstering this conclusion. See Morris, 207 F.3d at 745.

At step four, a claimant is not disabled if her residual functional capacity allows her to perform either the actual duties of her past relevant job or the duties of that occupation as generally performed in the national economy.

Novick v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2017-11-09(e)

According to the Commissioner's interpretation of past relevant work, a claimant will not be found to be disabled if she retains the RFC to perform: 1. The actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job; or 2. The functional demands and job duties of the occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e); S.S.R. 82-61 (1982); Martin v. Sullivan, 901 F.2d 650, 653 (8th Cir. 1990)(expressly approving the two part test from S.S.R. 82-61).