20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

Section 404.1520(f) requires the step-four assessment of whether a claimant can perform past relevant work.

Argueta v. Berryhill · filed 2017-11-20(f)

The administrative law judge did not err in finding that Argueta’s work as a sedentary produce sorter, following an on-the-job injury, was past relevant work for purposes of step four of the sequential analysis.

At step four, a claimant is not disabled if the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Arnold v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2018-02-13(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, a claimant will be found not disabled if he can return to his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

At the fourth step, the Commissioner uses the claimant’s residual functional capacity to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work despite her impairments.

Souto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-07-12(f)

The ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work despite her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). The RFC is the most that a claimant can do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

At step four, the ALJ uses the claimant’s residual functional capacity to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work despite her impairments.

Souto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-07-12(f)

The ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work despite her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) ends the disability evaluation at step four and requires a finding of not disabled when the claimant can still perform past relevant work.

Taylor v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-29(a)(4)(iv)

But, in this case, the evaluation process ends at Step Four because the ALJ appropriately found the Plaintiff could perform his past work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) (“If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.”); Kemp ex rel. Kemp v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 630, 632 n.1 (8th Cir. 2014) (“The evaluation process ends if a determination of disabled or not disabled can be made at any step”).

At step four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits returning to prior work, including work as generally performed in the national economy.

Cameron v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-02-04(a)(4)(iv)

Cameron’s contention that the hearing officer could only determine that he could return to prior work as generally performed in the economy at the fifth step of the disability analysis does not help him, Pl.’s Resp. 8, because this is in fact part of the step four inquiry, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); 404.1560(b)(2).

At step four, a claimant is not disabled if the claimant can still perform past relevant work.

Rosado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-05-07(a)(4)(iv)

This conclusion provided a valid legal basis for denying Rosado’s application for social security benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) CTf you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.”).

At step four, the disability inquiry asks whether the claimant can still perform past relevant work.

Schwandt v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-14(a)(4)(iv)

The step-four inquiry, however, was simply whether Schwandt could still perform her past relevant work as a dental hygienist. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Her “past relevant work” was her pre-2012 work as a dental hygienist, because Schwandt had performed that work at substantial gainful activity levels. See id. § 404.1560(b)(1).

At step four, the Commissioner compares a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the demands of past relevant work, and a claimant able to perform that work is not disabled.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-24(a)(4)(iv)

At the fourth step, the Commissioner will compare the assessment of the claimant’s RFC with the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work. Id. at § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... The ALJ here had the same information before her in making the determination that Johnson could return to her past work. The court finds that this determination is supported by substantial evidence and Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.

Under § 404.1520, a claimant who can still perform past relevant work is found not disabled, so the agency need not establish ability to perform other jobs.

Ball, Claire v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2019-07-25

Because the court is affirming the ALJ’s determination that Ball could perform her past relevant work, it does not matter whether Ball could perform other jobs. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (“If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.”).

At step four, a claimant is not disabled if she can perform her past relevant work as actually performed or as generally performed in the national economy.

Sloan v. Saul · filed 2019-08-12(f)

If she can perform her past relevant work, either as she actually performed it or as the position is generally performed in the national economy, then she is not “disabled” within the meaning of the Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1560(b), 416.920(f), 416.960(b).

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires a claimant to show that he cannot perform his past kind of work generally, rather than only a specific job previously held.

Monahan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-26(e)

The 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.” Jackson v. Bowen, 801 F.2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1986) (emphasis in original) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e)). Accordingly, a claimant needs to demonstrate that he or she cannot return to his or her former type of work rather than to a specific prior job.

Section 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant can perform past relevant work by reviewing the claimant’s RFC and the physical and mental demands of that past work.

Omerovic v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-30(f)

Fourth, the impairment must prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(f), 404.1520(f). The burden rests with the claimant at this fourth step to establish his or her RFC. Steed v. Astrue, 524 F.3d 872, 874 n.3 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Through step four of this analysis, the claimant has the burden of showing that she is disabled.”). The ALJ will review a claimant’s RFC and the physical and mental demands of the work the claimant has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At step four, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

COLLETT v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-08-30(a)(4)(iv)

As explained, supra, the ALJ must determine at Step Four whether the claimant has the RFC to perform his or her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

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

Cornellier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-09(f)

At step four, an ALJ considers whether a claimant is able to perform past relevant work in light of his or her RFC.

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

Kinal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(e)

In determining whether a claimant’s impairment(s) prevent the claimant from performing past relevant work, ALJs are required to review the claimant’s residual functional capacity and physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At step four, the regulation requires determining whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; a finding that the claimant can do so ends the disability inquiry without proceeding to step five.

Bentley v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-26(a)(4)(iv)

Having found Bentley could perform her past relevant work, the ALJ concluded she was not disabled at Step Four. (Tr. 24). The ALJ was not required to proceed to Step Five, where the Grids could have been applicable. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1560 (directing the ALJ to determine if the claimant can perform other work at Step Five if the ALJ finds the claimant cannot form her past relevant work).

Section 404.1520(f) ends the sequential evaluation at step four when a claimant has not shown that her impairments prevent her from performing past relevant work, requiring a finding of no disability.

Rachal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-16(f)

At step four, claimants have the burden of showing that they can no longer perform their past relevant work. See e.g. Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 844-45 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). If the ALJ finds that the claimant has not established that they are incapable of performing past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled under Social Security regulations and the sequential evaluation process ends. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

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

Hoang v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-16(f)

The ALJ’s finding at issue was made at step four of the five-step disability determination process. At step four, the ALJ determines whether a claimant has the RFC to perform her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). The term “past relevant work” means either (1) a specific past job as the claimant “actually performed” it, or (2) a past relevant job as it is “generally performed” or “usually performed” in the national economy.

At step four, § 404.1520(f) requires comparing a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work.

Andrade v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-11-26(f)

Although the burden of proof lies with the claimant at step four, the ALJ still has the duty to make the requisite factual findings to support his conclusion. See SSR 82-62; Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 844-45 (9th Cir. 2001). This is done by comparing the ALJ’s RFC to the physical and mental demands of claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Pinto, 249 F.3d at 844-45.

Section 404.1520(a)(iv) requires the Commissioner at Step 4 to determine whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Hulsey v. Saul · filed 2020-02-19(a)(iv)

Under Step 4 of the disability analysis, the Commissioner asks whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work. Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 25 (2003); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(iv), (e)–(f).

Section 404.1520(e) places the determination of a claimant’s ability to return to past relevant work within step four of the sequential evaluation process, along with the residual functional capacity and related findings.

Pittman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(e)

At the fourth step in the sequential evaluation process, the Administrative Law Judge makes findings regarding the weight assigned to medical source statements in the record4, the claimant=s credibility5, the claimant=s residual functional capacity6, the physical and mental demands of the claimant=s past relevant work, and the claimant=s ability to return to the past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

At step four, a claimant is not disabled if she can still perform her past relevant work as actually or generally performed.

de Guillen v. Saul · filed 2020-03-05(a)(4)(iv)

If a claimant can still perform her past relevant work—either as it is actually or generally performed—then she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to review a claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of past work, then determine whether the claimant can return to that past relevant work.

Puglisi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(e)

To determine whether an admitted impairment prevents a plaintiff from performing past work, the ALJ is required to review the plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and the physical and mental demands of the work done in the past. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & 416.920(e). The ALJ must then determine the individual’s ability to return to past relevant work given the RFC.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to assess whether the claimant's impairments prevent the claimant from performing past relevant work.

Torres-Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential process, the ALJ assesses whether plaintiff’s impairment or impairments prevent him from doing the type of work he has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). A claimant retains the capacity to perform her past relevant work when he can perform the functional demands and duties of the job as he actually performed it or as generally required by employers throughout the national economy.

At the past-work step, the ALJ compares the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the demands of the claimant’s previous work.

Padilla v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-16(f)

Once the ALJ determines a claimant’s RFC, she then compares this functional capacity with the job duties of the claimant’s previous work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ, at step four, to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Curtis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-17(a)(4)(iv)

As noted above, the ALJ must determine at step four of the sequential evaluation process whether the claimant has the RFC to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(f) requires evaluating a claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work at step four.

McCall v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-19(f)

Fourth, the impairment must prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(f), 404.1520(f). The burden rests with the claimant at this fourth step to establish his or her RFC. Steed v. Astrue, 524 F.3d 872, 874 n.3 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Through step four of this analysis, the claimant has the burden of showing that she is disabled.”). The ALJ will review a claimant’s RFC and the physical and mental demands of the work the claimant has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At step four, the regulation requires assessing whether the claimant's impairments prevent performance of the type of past work the claimant has done.

Quintana v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential process, the ALJ assesses whether a claimant’s impairment or impairments prevent him from doing the type of work that he has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(f) places the burden on the claimant at step four to show inability to return to past relevant work and requires the Commissioner to compare the claimant’s RFC with the demands of past work.

DANIELLO v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-04-06(f)

The ALJ reached Step 4 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the claimant bears the burden of proving inability to return to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). At this step, the commissioner must make findings of the plaintiff’s RFC and the physical and mental demands of past work and determine whether the plaintiff’s RFC would permit performance of that work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); Social Security Ruling 82-62 (“SSR 82-62”), reprinted in West’s Social Security Reporting Service Rulings 1975-1982, at 813.

At step four, a claimant is not disabled if the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work, either as actually performed or as generally performed in the national economy.

McFeeters v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-04-07(e)

According to the Commissioner's interpretation of past relevant work, a claimant will not be found to be disabled if he 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).

At step four, the ALJ must examine the claimant’s past relevant work after formulating the RFC and may find the claimant not disabled if she can perform that work as actually or generally performed.

(SS) Duval v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-08(a)(4)(iv)

After the RFC is formulated, the ALJ is to examine the claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can perform her past relevant work as she performed it or as it is generally performed, she is not disabled. Id.; Valencia v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 1082, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 1985).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of past work before deciding whether the claimant can return to that work.

Giovino v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-20(e)

To determine whether an admitted impairment prevents a plaintiff from performing past work, the ALJ is required to review the plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and the physical and mental demands of the work done in the past. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & 416.920(e). The ALJ must then determine the individual’s ability to return to past relevant work given the RFC.

Section 404.1520(f) directs the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work, and a claimant who can do so is not disabled.

Rocha v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-22(f)

At step four in the sequential evaluation, an ALJ considers whether a claimant, in light of the assessed residual functional capacity, can perform his or her “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If the claimant can, he or she is not considered disabled. ... In light of this evidence, it is clear that Plaintiff’s earnings of $11,073.80 in 2003 were from her position as a fruit checker/tallier at the same business operation. This averages out to $922.82 per month, which exceeds the $800 presumptive “substantial gainful activity” monthly earning amount for 2003. Plaintiff makes no attempt to rebut this presumption. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that this position qualified as “past relevant work” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(1).

At step four, § 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Hart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-18(f)

At step four of the five step sequential evaluation process for determining whether an individual is disabled, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the RFC to perform the requirements of his past relevant work. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to 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 that work.

Hawkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-09(e)

To determine whether an admitted impairment prevents a plaintiff from performing past work, the ALJ is required to review the plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and the physical and mental demands of the work done in the past. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & 416.920(e).

At the past-relevant-work step, § 404.1520(e) requires assessing whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Brown v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-07-08(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).

Section 404.1520’s step-four inquiry determines whether a claimant can perform past relevant work, and the claimant bears the burden of showing that she cannot do so.

Reyes v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-07-30

The step four analysis is limited to determining whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. Thus, at step four of the disability analysis, the claimant has the burden to prove she cannot perform her prior relevant work “either as actually performed or as generally performed in the national economy.” Carmickle, 533 F. 3d 1155, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005). The step four determination involves a comparison between the demands of the claimant’s former work and his or her present capacity. Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir. 1986). It is Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that she is unable to return to the previous job, and if she is unable to do so, the burden remains with her rather than shifting to the Commissioner to proceed with step five. Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1993). Although there are circumstances where VE testimony is necessary at step five, it is not required at step four. Id. (explaining that when the burden remains with the claimant at step four, VE testimony is useful but not required).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Allen, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-16(a)(4)(iv)

The ALJ’s task at step four is to determine whether the claimant has the RFC to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). To do so, an ALJ must examine all of the relevant evidence of record and assess what a claimant can do in a work setting despite any physical or mental restrictions caused by his impairments and related symptoms.

Section 404.1520(e) provides that a claimant is not disabled if her residual functional capacity permits performance of the demands of her past relevant job or the occupation as generally performed in the national economy.

Kirkland v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-09-22(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). ... Accordingly, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that during the time period in question, Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as a cashier-checker, as generally performed.

At step four, § 404.1520(f) requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work in light of the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

(SS) Basto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-24(f)

The sequential evaluation proceeds as follows: ... Step 4 If the claimant’s impairment is not listed in the regulations, determination whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past work in light of the claimant’s residual functional capacity; if not, the claimant is presumed not disabled and the claim is denied; ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (a)-(f) and 416.920(a)-(f). ... Specifically, had the ALJ correctly determined that plaintiff’s headaches are in fact a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ would then have been required to evaluate Dr. Som’s opinion in this regard further at Step 4. This further analysis could have resulted in the ALJ giving more weight to Dr. Som’s opinion regarding the limiting effects of plaintiff’s headaches. This, in turn, could have resulted in a finding of functional work-related limitations associated with headaches and a different residual functional capacity assessment at Step 4. Finally, a different functional capacity assessment which included limitations associated with headaches could have resulted in a different vocational finding at Step 5.

At step four of the sequential evaluation, the claimant must show that the impairment prevents performance of past relevant work, evaluated as the work was actually or generally performed.

Walker v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-16(e)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining if a person is eligible for either DIB or SSI because he or she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 (2019); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (DIB); Quang Van Han v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 1453, 1456 (9th Cir. 1989) (SSI). ... If the impairment is not one that is presumed to be disabling, the Commissioner proceeds to the fourth step to determine whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing work which the claimant has performed in the past. If the claimant is able to perform work which he or she has performed in the past, a finding of “not disabled” is made and Benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e). ... Plaintiff also asserts ALJ Jones erred at step four of the sequential analysis by not finding Plaintiff’s past relevant work was most consistent with a composite job of apartment manager and apartment maintenance/janitor. A claimant has the burden at step four of the sequential analysis to prove that she cannot perform her past relevant work. ... The ALJ must make findings that support the conclusion that a claimant is able to perform past relevant work “either as actually performed or as generally performed in the national economy.” ... ALJ Jones did not err in finding Plaintiff’s past relevant work, as actually performed, was apartment manager, not a composite job of apartment manager and apartment maintenance.

At step four, the claimant bears the burden of proving inability to perform past relevant work, and the Commissioner must compare the claimant’s RFC with the demands of that work.

GRAHAM v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-12-17(f)

The ALJ reached Step 4 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the claimant bears the burden of proving inability to return to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). At this step, the commissioner must make findings of the plaintiff’s RFC and the physical and mental demands of past work and determine whether the plaintiff’s RFC would permit performance of that work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); SSR 82-62, 1982 WL 31386, at *4 (Jan. 1, 1982).

At step four, the regulation requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity permits a return to previous work; a claimant who can perform that work is not disabled.

WILLIAMS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-26(f)

The fourth step of the analysis requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s RFC permits him to resume his previous employment. /d. If the claimant can perform his previous line of work, then he is not “disabled” and not entitled to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... The Court, nevertheless, finds that the ALJ’s analysis at step four was not sufficient for the Court to find that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires assessing whether a claimant’s impairments prevent her from doing the type of work she has done in the past.

Seda-Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-04(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential process, the ALJ assesses whether a claimant’s impairment or impairments prevent her from doing the type of work she has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... The ALJ properly relied upon the VE’s opinion to determine that Plaintiff was not disabled and his step four determination is supported by substantial evidence. Tr. 67.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) establishes the sequential disability evaluation, and subsection (e) requires the step-four determination of whether a claimant can perform past relevant work after assessing residual functional capacity.

(SS) Mayo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-09(a)(4), (e)

At step four of the sequential evaluation, the claimant has the burden of showing that she does not have the residual functional capacity to engage in “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... Consequently, the Court finds substantial evidence does not support the findings at step four, and the ALJ erred in classifying Plaintiff’s work as a housekeeper satisfied the requirements of substantial gainful activity at step four and qualified as past relevant work.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine at step four whether the claimant can perform past relevant work, and to proceed to the next step if the claimant cannot.

Asta v. Saul · filed 2021-04-15(e)

The ALJ employs a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. ... Step 4. Is the claimant able to do any work that he or she has done in the past? If so, then the claimant is “not disabled” and is not entitled to [DIB]. If the claimant cannot do any work he or she did in the past, then the claimant’s case cannot be resolved at step four and the evaluation proceeds to the fifth and final step. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... Consequently, the ALJ’s step four finding that Plaintiff can perform his PRW as a mental health counselor as Plaintiff actually performed the work is not supported by substantial evidence in the record because the record reveals that Plaintiff was required to occasionally lift substantially more weight—at least ninety more pounds—at his relevant PRW than Plaintiff’s RFC allows.

(a)(4)(iv) provides that a claimant is not disabled at step four if the claimant can perform past relevant work.

DELPIZZO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-06-28(a)(4)(iv)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) (providing that a claimant will be found not disabled where the ALJ finds at step four that the claimant can perform past relevant work).

At step four, the Commissioner determines whether, in light of the claimant’s residual functional capacity, the claimant can perform past relevant work; if so, the claimant is not disabled.

Daniel v. Saul · filed 2021-07-01(a)(4)(iv), (f)

At step four, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s RFC, the claimant is capable of performing work that he or she has performed in the past (past relevant work). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is capable of performing past relevant work, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... Accordingly, the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert contained the limitations reasonably identified by the ALJ and supported by substantial evidence in the record. The ALJ did not err at step four.

At step four, the agency determines whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity allows a return to past relevant work; ability to do that work requires a finding of not disabled.

Thompson v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2021-03-05(a)(4)(iv)

Entitlement to Social Security benefits is determined by a five-step sequential analysis set forth in the Social Security Regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 & 416.920. First, the claimant must not be engaged in substantial gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b) & 416.920(b). Second, a finding must be made that the claimant suffers from a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & 416.920(a)(5)(ii). In the third step, the ALJ determines whether the impairment meets or equals the severity criteria set forth in the Listing of Impairments contained in the Social Security Regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, & 404.1526. If the impairment satisfies the criteria for a listed impairment, the claimant is considered to be disabled. On the other hand, if the claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ must undertake the fourth step in the analysis and determine whether the claimant has the RFC to return to any past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) & 404.1520(e). If the ALJ determines that the claimant can return to past relevant work, then a finding of not disabled must be entered. Id. But if the ALJ finds the claimant unable to perform past relevant work, then at the fifth step the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(g)(1), & 416.960(c)(1)-(2). Further review is not necessary if it is determined that an individual is not disabled at any point in this sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

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

Gray v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-29(f)

At this stage of the analysis, if a claimant is able to perform past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (“If you can still do [past relevant work], we will find that you are not disabled.”). The ALJ determined that plaintiff is able to perform his PRW after hearing from a vocational expert who testified that a hypothetical individual with the same “vocational profile” as plaintiff could perform the plaintiff’s PRW.

At step four, the ALJ compares a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work.

Holbrook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-30(f)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ compares the claimant’s RFC with the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); see also SSR 82-62, 1982 WL 31386, at *2–3.

At Step 4, the claimant bears the burden of proving inability to perform past relevant work, while the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of that work after finding the capacity and the demands of the past work.

PLUMMER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2021-09-06(f)

As relevant to this appeal, the ALJ reached Step 4 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the claimant bears the burden of proving inability to return to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). At this step, the commissioner must make findings of the plaintiff’s RFC and the physical and mental demands of past work and determine whether the plaintiff’s RFC would permit performance of that work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); Social Security Ruling 82-62 (“SSR 82-62”), reprinted in West’s Social Security Reporting Service Rulings 1975-1982, at 813.

Section 404.1520(e) requires a claimant to show that she cannot perform her past kind of work as generally performed, not merely a specific former job.

Holmes v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-16(e)

“The 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.”

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires determining whether a claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

CICCONE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-23(a)(4)(iv)

An ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the RFC to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires evaluating whether a claimant can perform past relevant work by comparing the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of that work.

White v. Saul · filed 2021-09-24(e)

In Pinto v. Massanari, the Ninth Circuit explained that “[t]his is done by looking at the ‘residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands’ of the claimant’s past relevant.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e)). ... Failure to make specific factual findings in support of the conclusion that a claimant can perform past relevant work constitutes legal error that warrants reversal.

At Step Four, § 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ to compare a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work.

Howanietz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-01(f)

Generally, at Step Four, the ALJ “compare[s] [the] residual functional capacity assessment . . . with the physical and mental demands of [plaintiff’s] past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; if the claimant can, the claimant is not disabled.

Lanier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-16(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ determines if the claimant’s impairments prevent her from doing her past relevant work. If she can perform past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(iv) and 416.920, (a)(iv).

At step four, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to assess the claimant's residual functional capacity and determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

MCCUE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-02-17(a)(4)(iv)

An ALJ must consider whether the claimant has the RFC to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... For these reasons, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work, and is therefore not disabled, enjoys substantial support in the record.

Section 404.1520(e) provides that if a claimant can perform her past relevant work, she is not disabled at step four.

Doyle v. Saul · filed 2022-02-23(e)

At step four of the disability determination, it is the claimant’s burden to demonstrate she cannot perform her past relevant work. ... If a claimant can perform her past relevant work, then she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); Lewis, 236 F.3d at 515. ... In conclusion, the ALJ did not err at step four or step five regarding either the RFC or hypothetical questions posed, and his findings are supported by substantial evidence.

At step four, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform the requirements of her past relevant work.

Gionnette v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-29(f)

At step four, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform the requirements of her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At step four, § 404.1520(e) requires consideration of whether the claimant can perform past relevant work in light of the claimant's residual functional capacity, including the job's GED reasoning demands.

Saelee v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-09(e)

At step four, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can perform past relevant work given their RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... Thus, the Court finds that GED reasoning level—which reflects the mental demands of a job as described by the DOT—should be considered in determining whether a plaintiff can perform their past relevant work at Step Four of the sequential analysis.

Section 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ, at step four, to compare a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work.

Farandato v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-24(f)

If a job qualifies as past relevant work, then the ALJ must compare the claimant’s RFC “with the physical and mental demands of the [the claimant’s] past relevant work.” Young, 702 F.3d at 491 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)).

Section 404.1520(e) and (f) provide that an individual is not disabled when their residual functional capacity permits them to perform their past work.

Estares v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-20(e), (f)

An individual is not disabled if they have an RFC that permits them to perform past work. See, e.g., Fischer-Ross, 431 F.3d at 731; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), (f). ... The evidence showing B.E. performed his past work at the medium exertional level does not support the ALJ’s finding that B.E.’s “light” RFC allowed him to perform past work. ... On remand, the ALJ must explain whether B.E. previously performed his work at the light or medium level. Then, based on this explanation, the ALJ must explain whether B.E. is able to perform his past work, given that he has an RFC for light work.

Section 404.1520(e) ends the disability inquiry at step four when a claimant can perform past relevant work, so step-five grid rules do not apply.

Miller v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of SSA · filed 2023-02-03(e)

Further, once the ALJ found Plaintiff’s RFC allowed her to perform past relevant work, the disability inquiry was complete. The grids “are only used at step five,” which is inapplicable to the case at bar.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ, at Step Four, to determine whether a claimant’s impairments prevent performance of past relevant work.

Yates v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-25(e)

In the fourth step of the sequential analysis, the ALJ is to consider whether a claimant’s impairments keep her from doing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At step four, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to compare the claimant’s residual functional capacity with past relevant work, while the claimant bears the burden of showing inability to perform that work.

Crooms v. Kijakazi(CONSENT) · filed 2023-09-29(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ will consider a claimant’s RFC and the claimant’s past relevant work to determine whether the claimant “can still engage in the kind of gainful employment that [the claimant] has undertaken in the past.” Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). “At step four, the claimant carries a heavy burden of showing that his impairment prevents him from performing his past relevant work.” Id.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether a claimant's residual functional capacity permits her to perform her past relevant work.

DABKOWSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-10-17(a)(4)(iv)

An ALJ must consider whether the claimant has the RFC to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... The hypothetical question posed by the ALJ to the vocational expert assumed a claimant with Plaintiff’s vocational profile and the RFC found by the ALJ, which limited Plaintiff to, inter alia, never climbing ropes, ladders, or scaffolds. R. 20, 60–61. In response, the vocational expert testified that such an individual would be able to perform the work of mopper as actually performed by Plaintiff. R. 61–62. Based on this record, the Court is not persuaded that remand is required on this basis.

Section 404.1520 directs the ALJ to find a claimant not disabled at step four if the claimant can perform past relevant work and to proceed to step five if the claimant cannot.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-19(a)(4)(iv), (f), (a)(4)(v)

As previously stated, at step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC and ability to perform past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1545, 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.945. If the claimant can return to her past relevant work, the ALJ will conclude that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) & (f), 416.920(a)(4)(iv) & (f). At this step, the claimant bears the burden of proving that his or her impairments prevent him or her from performing past relevant work. Doughty, 245 F.3d at 1278. If the claimant cannot perform her past relevant work, the ALJ moves on to step five of the evaluation, which requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant’s RFC permits her to perform her past relevant work.

(SS) Carroll v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-22(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s RFC allows her to return to her past relevant work. ... An ALJ may not classify a composite job according to its “least demanding function” in order to conclude that a claimant can perform her past relevant work. ... Given the evidence that plaintiff had more physically demanding job duties than described in the DOT listing for filter assembler, the ALJ erred by not considering this and/or developing the record on this issue.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires an ALJ at step four to assess whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity allows the claimant to perform past relevant work.

LEWIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-01-19(a)(4)(iv)

An ALJ must consider whether the claimant has the RFC to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). In making this assessment, the ALJ must do three things: (1) the ALJ must make specific findings of fact as to the claimant’s residual functional capacity; (2) the ALJ must make findings of the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work; and (3) the ALJ must compare the residual functional capacity to the past relevant work to determine whether claimant has the level of capability needed to perform the past relevant work.

Section 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant can perform past relevant work using the claimant's residual functional capacity and the demands of the work as actually or generally performed.

Smith v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-25(f)

At the fourth step, the ALJ determines whether a claimant can perform their past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); see also Buck, 869 F.3d at 1048 (describing the five-step analysis). ... The ALJ properly made this determination because although Smith actually performed his past work at the medium exertional level, the DOT shows that the job is generally performed at the sedentary exertional level. ... Therefore, the ALJ did not err in determining Smith could perform his past relevant work as generally performed in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to use the claimant’s RFC at step four to decide whether the claimant can perform past relevant work, with all impairments adequately considered in that assessment.

Ashcraft v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-14(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ will use a claimant’s RFC to determine the claimant’s ability to perform past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1545. ... Upon consideration, the court finds that despite finding that Plaintiff has medically determinable mental impairments at step two, the ALJ failed to adequately consider Plaintiff’s mental impairments in formulating his RFC at step four.

Section 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether a claimant can perform her past relevant work as actually performed or as generally performed in the national economy.

Boyd v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-21(f)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform the requirements of her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). At this step, Plaintiff still bears the burden to show that she cannot perform her past relevant work. Sloan v. Saul, 933 F.3d 946, 950 (8th Cir. 2019) (citing Steed v. Astrue, 524 F.3d 872, 874 n.4 (8th Cir. 2008)). “If [plaintiff] can perform her past relevant work, either as she actually performed it or as the position is generally performed in the national economy, then she is not ‘disabled’ within the meaning of the act.” Sloan, 933 F.3d at 950 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1560(b), 416.960(b)).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires an ALJ to decide whether a claimant can still perform past relevant work given the claimant's limitations.

Stafford v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-27(a)(4)(iv)

At step four in an ALJ’s analysis of disability, the ALJ must decide whether a claimant can still do their past work given their limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the Commissioner to find a claimant not disabled at step four if the claimant can still perform past relevant work and to end the sequential evaluation there.

Huck v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-30(a)(4)(iv)

The Court finds no authority for an ALJ to make such an alternative determination. Here, the ALJ was required to end the evaluation at step four and find that plaintiff was not disabled: ... If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at a step, we make our determination or decision and we do not go on to the next step. ... (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 paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section and § 404.1560(b). ... Because the ALJ’s alternative determination at step five is not authorized by the regulations, the Court will not address that finding.

Section 404.1520(f) provides that a claimant is not disabled at step four when the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

SMITH, JR v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-03-19(f)

Claimants are not disabled if their RFC allows them to perform their past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), (f).

At step four, § 404.1520(f) permits a claimant to be found capable of past relevant work based on how that work is generally performed in the national economy, rather than only how the claimant actually performed it.

(SS) Helmstadt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-21(f)

The ALJ, however, did not base the decision at Step 4 on how Plaintiff actually performed his past relevant work. Rather, the ALJ permissibly focused on how such work is generally performed. ... Because the ALJ properly relied on VE testimony that Plaintiff can perform his past relevant work as such work is generally performed in the national economy, and not as Plaintiff actually performed his past relevant work, and because the stand/walk limitations were accurately conveyed to the VE, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s analysis at Step 4.

At step four, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform her past relevant work.

Hunt · filed 2026-01-12(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant can perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to determine whether a claimant’s residual functional capacity permits performance of the requirements of past relevant work.

Brian B. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-03-13(e)

Step Four requires the ALJ to determine whether Plaintiff has the RFC to perform the requirements of his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520(e) assesses whether a claimant can perform the tasks of past relevant work under ordinary working conditions.

Bowers v. Railroad Retirement Board · filed 1992-11-05(e)

We conclude that in determining whether an annuity claimant is unable to perform his past relevant work, it is necessary to separate the content of the claimant’s past work from the context in which it was performed, and then to assess whether he retains the ability to perform the work-related tasks under what would be considered “ordinary” conditions.

A claimant who can still perform past relevant work is not disabled.

Rose Reynolds v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-01-23(e)

Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) ("If you can still do this kind of work, we will find that you are not disabled"). ... Her work as a cashier within the 15-year period is still "relevant," and the finding that Ms. Reynolds was not disabled has substantial evidentiary support in the record as a whole.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to address whether recurring periods of illness affect a claimant’s ability to perform past relevant work.

Rimland v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-02(e)

Even though at least one medical report supports Rimland’s claim that the attacks can last for several weeks, the vocational expert didn’t testify as to whether they affect Rimland’s ability to perform his past relevant work. The ALJ must address that narrow issue on remand. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

At step four, an ALJ may rely on unchallenged vocational expert testimony to find that a claimant can perform past relevant work.

BECKETT v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-03-21(a)(4)(iv)

The ALJ was entitled to rely on the VE's unchallenged and uncontradicted testimony that Plaintiff can perform her past work as performed. ... As such, the ALJ did not err at Step Four.

At step four, a claimant may be found able to perform past relevant work if she can do the job as generally performed, even if she cannot do it as she previously performed it.

GREEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-21(f)

It is not necessary, however, that Beverly G. return to the actual position she previously held.

Section 404.1520(e) requires comparing a claimant’s former work demands with the claimant’s present physical capacities to determine whether the claimant can return to that work.

Strittmatter v. Schweiker · filed 1984-03-09(e)

To determine whether she is physically capable of returning to her former work, the administrative law judge obviously must ascertain the demands of that work in relation to the claimant’s present physical capacities, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); Mental Health Ass’n v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 965, 968 (8th Cir.1983); Carter v. Heckler, 712 F.2d 137, 140 (5th Cir.1983) — at least where, as in this case, there is evidence that the claimant’s impairments are worse today than when she was working.

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to determine first whether a claimant can perform previous work and then, if not, whether the claimant can perform other work.

Fidelia VALENCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1985-01-15(e), (f)

As previously noted, both the Social Security Act and the Secretary’s regulations provide that disability determinations are to be made according to a two-step process. First, it must be determined whether the applicant can perform his “previous work.” If not, the Secretary must then determine whether the claimant can engage in other, less demanding, work which exists in the national economy. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A) (1982). It is at the second step of the process that the Secretary is authorized to consider the four factors, including “work experience,” incorporated in the grids. Id.; see also, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (1984). Thus, the statute and regulations direct the Secretary to first determine whether a disability claimant can perform his past job or occupation before examining whether the skills and training acquired by the claimant through his previous work experience have equipped him to undertake other similar or related jobs.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the Secretary to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of past work when deciding whether the claimant can return to that work.

Milazzo v. Schweiker · filed 1981-12-30(e)

In cases where a claimant is no longer working, the Secretary must assess the claimant’s “residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the work [the claimant has] done in the past” in determining whether the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520(e) requires the Secretary to compare a claimant’s residual capacity with the demands of the claimant’s past relevant work.

Santos VILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1986-08-19(e)

To determine whether a claimant has the residual capacity to perform his past relevant work, the Secretary must ascertain the demands of the claimant’s former work and then compare the demands with his present capacity.

A claimant must show an inability to perform the previous type of work, not merely an inability to perform a specific prior job.

Thomas JACKSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1986-10-15(e)

The 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.

Section 404.1520(e) treats a claimant who can still do past relevant work as not disabled; background evidence matters at that step if it shows an impairment that could prevent that work.

David SEARS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1988-01-26(e)

Sears’ prison record and history of sexual and physical abuse as a child do not appear to be relevant to the conclusion that he is capable of doing his past relevant work as a teacher’s aide (except to the extent that his prior abuse created an impairment which might preclude him from doing that type of work). The regulations state that "Your impairment must prevent you from doing past relevant work.... If you can still do this kind of work, we will find that you are not disabled." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e) quoted in SSR 82-61 (PPS-72: Past Relevant Work — The Particular Job Or The Occupation As Generally Performed) (emphasis altered).

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

Abshire v. Bowen · filed 1988-07-05(e)

Initially, we note that the AU inadequately set forth his reasons for concluding that Abshire would be able to return to his job as a route salesman for the bread company despite his impairment. “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.’ ”

At step four, the adjudicator must make explicit findings about the physical and mental demands of past relevant work and compare them with the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Carolyn L. NIMICK, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee · filed 1989-10-12(e)

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has issued rulings which interpret the federal regulations and under these rulings and the above cited regulation, the AU 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 step four, a claimant must prove an inability to perform both the particular former job and the former occupation as generally performed throughout the national economy.

Sam A. ANDRADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1993-02-11(e)

We find no basis upon which to reject S.S.R. 82-61’s interpretation of the phrase past relevant work. Therefore, claimant bears the burden of proving his inability to return to his particular former job and to his former occupation as that occupation is generally performed throughout the national economy.

Section 404.1520(e) treats a claimant who can perform past relevant work as not disabled at that step.

Otis W. BOGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appell · filed 1993-07-06(e)

Because plaintiff retained the ability to perform his past relevant work prior to January 18,1989, he was not disabled prior to that date pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

At the past relevant work step, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s limitations against the demands of that work before finding that the claimant can return to it.

Louise SELLS, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1995-02-27(e)

The ALJ’s discussion of Sells’ limitations and the demands of her past work falls short of the standards required by the above-cited social security regulation and our decisions interpreting that regulation. ... Because the ALJ failed to properly consider both Sells’ present limitations and the demands of her past work, his determination that Sells could return to her past relevant work as a security guard is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(e) permits a finding that a claimant is not disabled when the claimant can perform the type of work previously done, even if the particular former job had unusually demanding duties.

Leonardo S. ORTEZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1995-03-22(e)

The ALJ’s findings that Orteza could perform “light work” as a file clerk and that such work is available, legally supports the Secretary’s determination that Orteza is not disabled, even if Orteza could not return to the specific job he had previously held because of the unusually heavy bending and lifting required there. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (claimant not disabled if able to perform same type of work done in past); Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir.1986) (claimant has burden of proving that he cannot return to his former type of work, not just his particular job).

At step four, the ALJ must compare the demands of a claimant’s past work with the claimant’s current functional capacity.

Victoria MANSO-PIZARRO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1996-02-08(e)

At that point, the ALJ must compare the physical and mental demands of that past work with current functional capability.

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

Welch v. Chater · filed 1996-04-22(e)

In order to determine whether an admitted 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. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & 416.920(e). ... On remand, the ALJ must develop the record concerning the demands of plaintiffs past relevant work and also make findings that compare the mental demands of that work with plaintiffs current capabilities.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s residual functional capacity and the demands of her past work when deciding whether she can return to that work.

Cochran v. Chater · filed 1997-08-22(e)

In order to determine whether an admitted 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. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & 416.920(e).

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

Sepulveda v. Callahan · filed 1998-04-16(e)

This, in itself, is enough to support a finding of not disabled at step four of the sequential analysis: her impairment does not prevent her from performing work she has performed in the past.

A claimant who can perform past relevant work despite an impairment is not disabled at step four.

Hazel Pyland v. Social Security Adm. · filed 1998-07-22(e)

A reasonable mind could conclude that, based on the evidence, Pyland could perform her past relevant work as a secretary and, therefore, was not disabled.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the disability evaluation to proceed to step five when a claimant cannot perform past relevant work or has no past relevant work.

Lewis v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2001-01-02(e)

If a claimant can perform his or her past relevant work, then he or she is not disabled. If not, or if he or she did not do past relevant work, then the ALJ moves to step five, in which he or she determines if the claimant has the residual functional capacity to do other substantial gainful work.

At step four, the ALJ need not make explicit findings about past relevant work both as actually performed and as generally performed.

Pinto v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2001-05-01(e)

We have never required explicit findings at step four regarding a claimant’s past relevant work both as generally performed and as actually performed.

At step four, the ALJ must identify the demands of a claimant’s past work and assess them against the claimant’s present capacities.

Novak v. Barnhart · filed 2001-12-28(e)

To determine whether, at step ... four, plaintiff is physically capable of returning to his former job, the ALJ must ascertain the demands of that work in relation to plaintiffs present physical capacities.

At step four, past relevant work for a disability insurance claim is work performed while the claimant was insured.

Gossett v. Barnhart · filed 2005-05-24(a)(4)(iv)

Simply put, past relevant work is work performed while insured, and no evidence supports the finding that plaintiff was employed as a nursery worker or in other “light work” while insured.

At step four, a claimant who can perform past relevant work given their residual functional capacity is not disabled.

Travis v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2007-02-28(f)

If the claimant can still perform that work, the claimant is not disabled. ... There is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision that Travis had the RFC to return to past work.

At step four, the ALJ must compare the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the demands of past relevant work and make specific factual findings; vocational expert testimony alone is insufficient.

Parker v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-27(f)

This Court adopts this standard and holds that under SSR 82-62, reliance solely on testimony from a VE is an insufficient basis for a PRW decision.

At the past relevant work step, the agency need not consider the claimant’s age when deciding whether the claimant can resume prior work.

TRANTER v. Astrue · filed 2010-10-20(a)(4)(iv)

As a result, Tranter’s argument is rejected because the ALJ was not required to account for her age in deciding whether she was able to resume her prior work.

At step four, findings about the mental demands of a claimant’s past relevant work must be supported by substantial evidence.

Bier v. Colvin · filed 2014-04-23(e)

As it stands, the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s phase-two findings regarding the mental demands of Plaintiffs past work as a cashier.

At step four, a claimant who can perform past relevant work within his residual functional capacity has not shown he is disabled.

Paul H. Ostborg, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-05-29(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC and ability to perform past relevant work. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... Nothing in the record shows these tasks were beyond his RFC. ... Ostborg has not met ... his burden of showing he could not perform his past relevant work.

Section 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ to compare a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work.

Andrade-Hermort v. Berryhill · filed 2017-11-06(f)

Although plaintiff failed to put in issue how her limitations prevented her from satisfying the requirements of being a teacher's aide, it is unclear how the ALJ could have concluded that plaintiff had the RFC to perform her past job as a teacher's aide without an understanding of what the job entails. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (requiring ALJ to compare his RFC assessment with the physical and mental demands of plaintiff's past relevant work).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) directs a finding of no disability when a claimant can still perform past relevant work.

Moore v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-03(a)(4)(iv)

In sum, the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant sedentary work as a tax preparer, accounts receivable clerk, and an officer manager (AR 27). And if a claimant "can still do [her] past relevant work, [the Commissioner] will find that [she is] not disabled." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(e) provides that a claimant who can perform past relevant work is not disabled at step four.

Raja Pile-Hijr v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-29(e)

If a claimant can perform her past relevant work, then she is not disabled.

Section 404.1520 treats a claimant who can perform past relevant work or adjust to other work as not disabled when the first three steps do not resolve the claim.

Guidry v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-01(f), (g)

These conclusions support a finding that plaintiff is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (stating that ... when an ALJ “cannot make a determination or decision at the first three steps of the sequential evaluation process,” if a claimant’s “residual functional capacity” would permit him to perform “past relevant work,” he is “not disabled”); id. § 404.1520(g) (stating the same regarding “an adjustment to other work”).

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

Sharp v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-31(a)(4)(iv)

Thus, the ALJ properly determined that, based on the record, Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work and was not disabled within the meaning of the act.

At step four, the ALJ determines whether a claimant can still perform past relevant work.

Parsley v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-05(a)(4)(iv)

At step four in the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ determines whether a claimant can still perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... Therefore, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s step-four finding.

At step four, the ALJ must assess whether the claimant can perform past relevant work in light of the claimant’s residual functional capacity; unresolved conflicting evidence about that work can require remand.

BAIZA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-02-23(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the five-step sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant is able to do past relevant work, considering his or her residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... Because the ALJ failed to resolve the discrepancies between this competing evidence, the Court finds that remand is appropriate here to appropriately classify Plaintiff’s PRW.

At step four, the ALJ must resolve material discrepancies between a claimant’s description of past work and the job used to find that she can still perform it.

Siakala v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-04(a)(4)(iv)

To simply rely on the VE’s testimony in the face of the relevant contradictory information in the record about Plaintiff’s past relevant work history was error.

At step four, a claimant bears the burden of proving that she cannot return to her past relevant work as actually or generally performed in the national economy.

Hernandez v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-11(f)

At step four, a claimant has the burden of proving that she cannot return to her past relevant work as actually or generally performed in the national economy.

At step four, the ALJ must adequately evaluate whether the claimant can perform past relevant work before finding the claimant not disabled.

Adams v. OMalley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-03-19(a)(4)(iv)

As aforementioned, at the fourth step, 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). ... Reviewing the record as a whole, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s step four finding as to Adams’s past relevant work as she actually performed it is not supported by substantial evidence, nor did the ALJ apply the proper legal analysis.

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

Street v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-25(f)

Accordingly, the Court does not find that the ALJ erred by concluding that Plaintiff could perform past relevant work in the absence of substance abuse.

At step four, the ALJ considers the claimant’s residual functional capacity and past relevant work to determine whether the claimant can still perform that work.

Chain v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2024-04-02(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ will consider a claimant’s RFC and the claimant’s past relevant work to determine whether the claimant “can still engage in the kind of gainful employment that [the claimant] has undertaken in the past.” Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

At step four, the claimant bears the burden of showing that she cannot perform her past relevant work as she actually performed it.

Sanders v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-04-25(a)(4)(iv)

Plaintiff had the burden to demonstrate that she could no longer perform her past relevant work as she actually performed it.

The section treats a claimant as not disabled when the claimant can perform work done before.

Bowman v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-06-06(e)

The regulations inform claimants that they will not be considered disabled if they are able to do work they formerly performed. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1982).

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

May v. Bowen · filed 1987-05-28(e)

Thus, all Social Security Administration personnel must apply 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) as interpreted in SSR 82-62.

Section 404.1520(e) requires determining whether a claimant can perform her past relevant work before considering other work.

Taylor v. Bowen · filed 1987-05-28(e)

The statute and the regulations prescribe a sequential evaluation in disability determinations. Before the Secretary may consider claimant’s “work experience,” which is incorporated in the “grids,” see 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, the Secretary must first determine whether claimant can perform her previous work. ... Plaintiff’s past relevant work implicated some “light” exertional demands. Plaintiff retains the RFC to perform “sedentary” work. On the present record, plaintiff is not able to perform her past relevant work within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1520(e).

Paragraph (e) requires the agency to compare a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work.

Allen GROEPER, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1991-05-09(e)

When evaluating whether a claimant is able to return to his past work, the AU is required to follow the appropriate guidelines. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e) (1990). ... An AU’s decision that a claimant can return to his past work must be based on more than conclusory statements. The AU must specifically set forth the claimant’s limitations, both physical and mental, and determine how those limitations affect the claimant’s residual functional capacity. The AU must also make explicit findings regarding the actual physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work. Then, the AU should compare the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the actual demands of the past work to determine whether the claimant is capable of performing the relevant tasks.

Section 404.1520(e) requires the Secretary to assess whether a claimant can perform the kind of work she did in the past.

Rivera v. Sullivan · filed 1991-07-17(e)

In assessing whether a claimant can perform the “kind of work” that she has “done in the past,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), the Secretary normally focuses in the first instance on the physical demands of the job previously performed by the claimant.

Section 404.1520(e) requires assessing residual functional capacity and past relevant work at step four before proceeding to step five.

Gower v. Apfel · filed 2001-04-11(e)

The regulations outline a five-step analysis for evaluating disability claims. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Under the fourth step, Defendant is to determine whether a claimant is capable of performing past relevant work. Specifically, this step provides as follows: ... If we cannot make a decision based on your current work activity or on medical facts alone, and you have a severe impairments), 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. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... Because we conclude that Plaintiff established a prima facie through step four of the analysis, we remand the case for a determination as to whether Defendant is able to demonstrate that there is work in the national economy that Plaintiff is able to perform under step five.

A claimant who can perform past relevant work is not disabled under the five-step evaluation.

Behling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-03-16(f)

In this case, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that appellant retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work and that she could return to her past relevant type of work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); see also Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that appellant did not suffer from a disability, as that term is defined in the Social Security Act, prior to the date on which she was last insured. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At step four, the ALJ evaluates whether a claimant can perform past relevant work despite her impairments.

Ingram v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-13(a)(4)(iv)

The undersigned agrees that the record was sufficient and additional evidence was not needed to support the ALJ’s decision. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in her evaluation at Step 4 of the 5-Step Sequential Disability Evaluation.

At step four, work qualifies as past relevant work only if it involved substantial gainful activity.

Tepper v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-16(a)(4)(iv)

At the fourth step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant retains the RFC to perform her “past relevant work”; if so, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... It is clear from Tepper’s earnings that her laboratory-assistant and butterfly-curator jobs were not substantial gainful activity. It was error for the ALJ to conclude otherwise.

At step four, work that did not reach the level of substantial gainful activity cannot qualify as past relevant work.

Lucero v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-23(f)

This contradicts the ALJ's finding at step four that Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work as an audio technician because to be past relevant work it must have been at the substantial gainful activity level.

At Step Four, a claimant may be found able to perform past relevant work as generally performed when the work was not a composite job.

Dempsey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-13(e)

Since the ALJ had proper support for finding that two of Plaintiff’s medical secretary positions were not “composite jobs,” because they were performed separate from her medical assistant jobs, the ALJ was free to find that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as it was generally performed.

At step four, a claimant who can perform past relevant work is not disabled, and the evaluation ends without proceeding to step five.

HARRIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-05-07(f)

Because the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was capable of performing his past relevant work, the ALJ did not need to continue to step five of the sequential step analysis.

At step four, a claimant who can perform past relevant work is not disabled; the work is classified by the duties the claimant actually performed.

Bear v. Saul · filed 2020-08-21(a)(4)(iv)

Because the ALJ found that Bear was capable of performing past relevant work, a determination of “not disabled” was required. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... As such, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Bear did not perform the main duties of a well drill operator. See SSR 82-61. Bear fails to establish that the job she performed was that of a well drill operator rather than a will point pumping supervisor.

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant to show that her impairments prevent her from performing past work.

Nurre v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-18(f)

In other words, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had physical and mental impairments which prevented her from performing work she previously performed. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), (f). Thus, the ALJ’s order reflects that Plaintiff met her burden of proving disability.

At step four, a claimant who can perform past relevant work is not disabled even if that work is no longer available or its technology has changed.

Sands v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-25(f)

These authorities foreclose the argument that plaintiff’s ability to perform past work at step four contemplates changes to the availability of, or technological advancements to, the past work.

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

Hammer v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-30(a)(4)(iv)

Furthermore, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act because she is capable of performing her past relevant work as a receptionist is supported by the record as a whole.

Section 404.1520(f) provides that a claimant is not disabled when, based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Rosas v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-02(f)

If the ALJ determines, based on the RFC, that the claimant can perform past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. Id. § 404.1520(f). ... Because the record indicates Plaintiff performed her past relevant work at the medium exertion level, but the ALJ determined Plaintiff’s RFC remained at the light exertion level, it appears the ALJ erred in concluding that she retained the RFC to perform the requirements of her past work.

At step four, the agency compares the claimant's residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work and finds the claimant not disabled if the claimant can still do that work.

Ford v. Saul · filed 2022-03-02(f)

You impairment(s) must prevent you from doing your past relevant work. If we cannot make a determination or decision at the first three steps of the sequential evaluation process, we will compare our residual functional capacity assessment, which we made under paragraph (e) of this section, with the physical and mental demands of your past relevant work. . . . If you can still do this kind of work, we will find that you are not disabled.

The fourth and fifth steps ask whether a claimant can perform past work and, if not, other work available in the national economy given the claimant's age, education, and work experience.

Walgreen Co. v. Carver · filed 2000-08-30(e), (f)

Her entitlement to workers' compensation permanent total disability benefits hinges on the fourth and fifth steps of the social security disability standard, which ask whether she can perform her past work (which included work as a cosmetologist) and, if not, whether, taking into account her age, education and past work experience, she can do other work available in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 places the initial burden on a disability claimant to prove disability, after which the burden shifts to the Secretary to show other gainful work exists when the claimant cannot perform past work.

Carroll v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-04-11

The burden is on the claimant to prove that he is disabled within the meaning of the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1982); Decker v. Harris, 647 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir.1981). However, if the claimant shows that his impairment renders him unable to perform his past work, the burden then shifts to the Secretary to show there is other gainful work in the national economy which the claimant could perform.

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to show that substantial work exists in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

McBryde v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-03-23

We review Ms. McBryde's claim under the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1991). These impose on the Secretary the burden of showing that there is substantial work in the national economy which the claimant can perform.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential five-step disability evaluation that ends when the claimant is found not disabled at any step.

Schumacher v. Barnhart · filed 2002-04-16(a), (b)

The Social Security Regulations provide a five-step process to determine whether a claimant has established a “disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The process is sequential; if the ALJ finds that the claimant is not disabled at any step in the process, the analysis ends. ... In the first step, the ALJ considers whether the claimant is working and whether such work is “substantial gainful activity.” § 404.1520(b). If the claimant is working, the ALJ will find he is not disabled irrespective of medical condition, age, education, and work experience. ... If the claimant is not working, the ALJ will address step two: whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that is “severe.” § 404.1520(c). A “severe” impairment is one which “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”

At Step 2, a claimant must show a medically determinable impairment, and a severe impairment must significantly limit the ability to perform basic work activities.

Fields v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-27(a)(4)(ii), (c)

In sum, Step 2 requires proof of a medically determinable impairment, not just proof of an anatomical or physiological abnormality, and that is all that Fields has produced. ... Dr. MacEachran’s statement is substantial evidence that if Fields had an MDI of osteoarthritis or degenerative disc disease before her DLI, she has not carried her burden of demonstrating that either impairment satisfied the Step 2 severity standard, under which an impairment must “significantly limit [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two of the sequential evaluation, a claimant must have a medically determinable severe impairment or combination of impairments that lasts, or is expected to last, at least twelve months.

Vaughn v. Colvin · filed 2015-07-24(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the claimant has to show that he had a combination of impairments that is medically determinable, severe, and at least twelve months in duration. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520 treats step two as a threshold inquiry, so an error there is generally harmless, but it can cause harm if an impairment is found not medically determinable or non-severe impairments are not considered at later steps.

Herring v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-29(c)-(g)

Generally, an error at step two is harmless because it is a threshold test. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)-(g). ... However, an error can harm the claimant if an impairment is improperly found to be not medically determinable or when non-severe impairments are not considered at later steps.