20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

At the second step, a claimant may be found not disabled if the impairment does not significantly limit basic work-related functions, and medical evidence may support that finding, but the regulation does not specify the burden of proof.

Roberts v. Heckler · filed 1983-04-22(c)

The step relevant to the Secretary’s argument is the second step which allows a claimant to be found not disabled if he or she does not suffer from an impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work-related functions. The regulations permit a finding of no disability without reference to “age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.-1520(c). ... In this case, there is no need to speculate about the validity of the second step of the Secretary’s regulations. The Secretary argues that the second step allows him to make a finding of not disabled on the basis of medical evidence alone and forecloses the need for the ALJ to shift the burden of proof. The Court can agree with only the first of these arguments. The regulations do state that medical evidence is sufficient to support a decision of not disabled, but the regulations are silent as to the burden of proof in the second step.

Section 404.1520 requires the second step of the disability evaluation to determine whether the claimant’s impairments are severe.

Bunn v. Bowen · filed 1986-05-05

The second step of the Secretary’s sequential process for evaluating disability claims requires a determination of whether plaintiff’s impairments are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, meaning the limitation must be more than slight or minimal.

Cook v. Bowen · filed 1986-08-01(c)

An impairment imposes significant limitations when its effect on a claimant’s ability to perform basic work is more than slight or minimal.

Section 404.1520's step 2 severity screen is a limited threshold that does not bar a claim unless the impairment is only minimally limiting or the claim is groundless; the claimant must then receive the complete sequential evaluation.

Stanwood v. Bowen · filed 1986-09-12

Both the AU and the Magistrate based their opinions on a finding that the plaintiff did not have a “severe” impairment, within the meaning of step 2 of the 5-step sequential test used to determine disability. ... This finding represents a misunderstanding and misapplication of the step 2 “severity” test. ... The court holds that plaintiff’s claim is not so insubstantial as to be considered “groundless” or “frivolous,” nor can it be said that her impairment has no more than a “minimal effect” on her ability to do most work. ... On the basis of the foregoing, the court holds that plaintiff’s claim is not barred for failure to satisfy the “severity” requirement. To hold otherwise would be to require hospitalization as an essential element in establishing a “severe” impairment.

Section 404.1520(c) permits a Step 2 denial only for impairments that have no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work; if an impairment prevents past relevant work, the claim must proceed to further evaluation.

Ines ANDRADES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1986-05-07(c)

Thus, by means of Ruling 85-28, the Secretary now makes it clear that the Step 2 “non-severe” inquiry was designed to screen out only “totally groundless claims.” ... In particular, benefits may not be denied at the Step 2 stage of the sequential evaluation process if a disability, whatever its level of severity, leaves a claimant unable to perform his or her past relevant work. In such event, further evaluation, designed to show whether the claimant can perform other work, is required.

Section 404.1520 requires a disability claimant to show a severe impairment that significantly limits basic work activities; an impairment is not non-severe if it could affect the claimant’s ability to work regardless of age, education, or work experience.

Murphy v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1986-07-25

Plaintiff must prove that the impairment is severe and that it significantly limits his ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 404.1521. An impairment can be considered not severe only if the impairment would not affect the plaintiffs ability to work regardless of his age, education and work experience. ... On this record, we cannot conclude that plaintiff’s impairment would not have interfered with his ability to perform basic work-related activities.

Section 404.1520(c)'s step-two inquiry is a mild threshold screen: an impairment may be found nonsevere only when it is so slight, with such minimal effect, that it clearly would not be expected to interfere with the claimant's ability to work, regardless of age, education, or work experience.

McDaniel v. Otis R. Bowen , Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1986-09-09(c)

At step two of § 404.1520 and § 416.920 a claimant’s impairment is determined to be either severe or not severe. Step two is a threshold inquiry. It allows only claims based on the most trivial impairments to be rejected. The claimant’s burden at step two is mild. An impairment is not severe only if the abnormality is so slight and its effect so minimal that it would clearly not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education or work experience. Claimant need show only that her impairment is not so slight and its effect is not so minimal.

Subsection (c) places the severe-impairment finding at step two of the five-step sequential disability analysis, before the claimant’s total disability is decided.

Mullins v. Kenley · filed 1986-07-17(c)

Stated briefly, under §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c), a finding of “severe impairment” is made at the second step of a five-step sequential disability analysis. The question as to the claimant’s total disability is not decided at this second step. Thus, under these social security regulations, a claimant may suffer a “severe impairment” and still not be disabled.

Section 404.1520(c) validly permits the Secretary to deny a disability claim at step two when the claimant’s medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments does not significantly limit basic work activities, without considering age, education, or work experience.

Bowen v. Yuckert · filed 1987-06-08(c)

On its face, the regulation is not inconsistent with the statutory definition of disability. ... If the impairments are not severe enough to limit significantly the claimant’s ability to perform most jobs, by definition the impairment does not prevent the claimant from engaging in any substantial gainful activity.

At Step 2, § 404.1520 treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits basic work activities and has lasted or is expected to last at least twelve months.

Vogler v. Saul · filed 2020-10-27(a)(4)(ii)

A severe impairment is one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities and has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c) and 404.1509; 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c) and 416.909. The claimant bears the burden of establishing a severe impairment at Step 2 of the evaluation process, requiring him to demonstrate that the impairment(s) more than minimally impacts his ability to work.

Section 404.1520(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit basic work activities to be severe; an impairment is non-severe when it has no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

(SS) Mai v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-23(c)

To qualify for benefits, the plaintiff must have an impairment severe enough to significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... At the outset, the Court rejects the suggestion that the existence of an impairment meets the legal threshold at Step 2. See Verduzco v. Apfel, 188 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 1999). First, not all impairments result in limitation. Second, not all limitations are work-related. Third, not all work-related limitations are severe enough to more than minimally effect the ability to perform work-related tasks. ... While moderate tenderness and positive Finkelstein test both suggest the existence of some amount of limitation associated with left deQuervain’s tenosynovitis, Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence of record to establish that these limitations impact work-related activities or that any impact is more than minimal. Notably, Dr. Lin’s records, upon which Plaintiff relies, reveal no findings of work-related limitations or opinions as to the extent of any such limitations.

At step 2, an impairment is severe when the evidence shows more than minimal limitations on the claimant’s ability to perform work.

(SS) Heilman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-01(c)

To qualify for benefits, the plaintiff must have an impairment severe enough to significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... At Step 2, the only question is whether Plaintiff has provided evidence of more than minimal limitations. Here, the Court finds she had. Whether the specific limitations opined by Drs. Correa, Kiefer, Green, and Bruno are to be afforded weight in determining Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity is a question for Step 4. Thus, the ALJ’s evaluation of the weight to be afforded these opinions at Step 2 is misplaced. Because Plaintiff has shown evidence of more than minimal limitations on her ability to perform the mental demands of work, the ALJ erred in determining Plaintiff’s mental impairments are non-severe.

Section 404.1520(c) uses a de minimis standard at step two, and an impairment omitted there must still have its associated limitations considered at step four.

(SS) Ballesteros v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-03(c)

Here, the Court applies the Stout standard because the ALJ provided no rationale at Step 2 regarding the severity of Plaintiff’s knee impairment. As discussed above, the severity determination at Step 2 applies a de minimis standard and is not an RFC finding. The failure to consider an impairment at Step 2 can only affect the disability determination when limitations associated with that impairment are also not considered at Step 4 in determining the claimant’s RFC. Such is the case here.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant's ability to perform basic work activities, and an impairment causing no more than a minimal effect on work may be found non-severe.

(SS) Barbee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-29(c)

To qualify for benefits, the plaintiff must have an impairment severe enough to significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... An impairment, or combination of impairments, can only be found to be non-severe if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 85-28; see also Yuckert v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 303, 306 (9th Cir. 1988) (adopting SSR 85-28).

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

(SS) Chavez Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-14(c)

To qualify for benefits, the plaintiff must have an impairment severe enough to significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... In any event, as outlined above, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s mental impairments and degenerative disc disease are in fact severe impairments. The Court finds no error at Step 2.

Section 404.1520(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant's ability to perform basic work activities to be severe; an impairment is non-severe only when it has no more than a minimal effect on the ability to work.

(SS) Valdez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-17(c)

To qualify for benefits, the plaintiff must have an impairment severe enough to significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... An impairment, or combination of impairments, can only be found to be non-severe if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 85-28; see also Yuckert v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 303, 306 (9th Cir. 1988) (adopting SSR 85-28).

At step five, the ALJ may use the grid for solely exertional impairments but must consult a vocational expert when the claimant also has nonexertional impairments.

Borrero v. Callahan · filed 1998-03-30(f)

If the claimant exhibits only exertional impairments, the ALJ can determine whether he is disabled by consulting the grid. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If, however, the claimant also exhibits nonex-ertional impairments, the ALJ must consult a vocational expert to determine whether the claimant possesses the residual functional capacity for substantial gainful activity. ... Thus, it concludes that the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff does not exhibit any significant nonexertional limitations is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(f) allows the Secretary to assess a claimant’s individual qualifications and use medical-vocational guidelines to determine whether suitable jobs exist in the national economy.

Heckler v. Campbell · filed 1983-05-16(f)

As the Secretary has argued, the use of published guidelines brings with it a uniformity that previously had been perceived as lacking. To require the Secretary to relitigate the existence of jobs in the national economy at each hearing would hinder needlessly an already overburdened agency. We conclude that the Secretary’s use of medical-vocational guidelines does not conflict with the statute, nor can we say on the record before us that they are arbitrary and capricious.

Section 404.1520's medical-vocational guidelines may be applied to determine disability after considering the claimant's maximum sustained work capacity, age, education, and work experience.

George MONGEUR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1983-11-22

The ALJ, armed with all of his findings, including Mongeur's "maximum sustained work capacity, age, education and work experience," then properly applied the medical/vocational guidelines found in 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520 (1982) to reach the conclusion that Mongeur was not disabled.

Section 404.1520(e) permits a vocational counsellor’s report to be admitted as evidence in evaluating disability.

LaFace v. Heckler · filed 1984-05-11(e)

The report of the vocational counsellor which the AU discounted is clearly admissible evidence under the Secretary’s regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), and is, in fact reliable primary evidence.

Section 404.1520 does not require use of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines at step four of the sequential disability-evaluation process.

Fetters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-12-21

Use of the Grids is not required at step four of the five-step sequential process prescribed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 for evaluating disabilities.

At step five, the ALJ may rely on the medical-vocational guidelines when non-exertional limitations do not significantly reduce the claimant’s capacity for the full range of light work.

Candelario v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-03-30(a)(4)(v)

In the instant case, the Court finds that since there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiffs capacity for a full range of light work has not been significantly compromised by her non-exertional limitations, then the ALJ’s reliance on the medical-vocational guidelines was appropriate.

At step five, the Commissioner may rely on the Medical Vocational Guidelines instead of consulting a vocational expert when the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors have been considered.

Mauro King v. Berryhill · filed 2017-04-14(g)

Because the hearing officer considered all of these factors, she appropriately relied on the Medical Vocational Guidelines!

At the fifth step, when a claimant's non-exertional impairment significantly affects the range of work he can perform, the Commissioner may not rely solely on the Grid and must consider vocational evidence.

Miranda-Monserrate v. Barnhart · filed 2007-10-23(a)(4)(v)

The final step is that at which the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education and work experience is considered and a decision regarding the ability of claimant to adjust to other work is made. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... Therefore, the ALJ’s denial of disability based solely on the Grid was not appropriate since Plaintiffs non-exertional impairment interfered with his entire ability to function. ... The ALJ should have considered vocational evidence.

Section 404.1520(f) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to determine whether the claimant can perform other work after being found unable to do past work because of a severe impairment.

Clemente v. Schweiker · filed 1983-05-16(f)

Under the pertinent regulations, if plaintiff cannot do the work he has done in the past because he has a severe impairment, the ALJ must consider his residual functional capacity, as well as his age, education and past work experience, to see if he can do other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). The statute, as well, requires that the Secretary consider those factors before finding a claimant disabled. 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i)(l), 423(d). Therefore, neither the statute nor the regulations contemplate that the Secretary may, without considering such vocational factors, deny benefits to a claimant with plaintiff’s degree of impairment.

Section 404.1520 requires the burden to shift to the Secretary to show that a claimant can perform other substantial gainful activity once the claimant shows an inability to return to former work.

Stanley v. Schweiker · filed 1984-03-22

We therefore conclude that Stanley presented substantial evidence, which has not been contradicted, showing that her vocal impairment prevented her from returning to her former work as a waitress. Under the regulations, once the claimant makes this showing, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show that the claimant is able to perform other substantial gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1983); Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264-65 (4th Cir.1981).

At the fifth step, the Secretary must consider the claimant’s age, education, and past work experience in deciding whether the claimant can perform other work available in the economy.

Lucena v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1985-01-21(f)(1)

Lastly, if an individual still has not been ruled ineligible for benefits, the fifth step requires the Secretary to take into account the additional considerations of age, education and past-work experience to determine whether the individual is capable of performing any other work available in the economy, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1).

Section 404.1520(f)(1) shifts the burden to the defendant to prove that a claimant who cannot perform past work can perform other work, considering the claimant’s remaining capacity, age, education, experience, and training.

Carrillo v. Heckler · filed 1984-11-21(f)(1)

Once a claimant has satisfied his burden of proving that his impairments render him unable to perform his past employment, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the claimant can perform other work, considering his remaining physical and mental capacity, age, education, experience and training.

At the fifth step, § 404.1520(f) requires assessing the claimant's qualifications and whether work exists that the claimant can perform, including the physical requirements of sedentary work.

Troupe v. Heckler · filed 1985-09-12(f)

The regulations divide the Secretary’s inquiry on the final step into two stages. First, the Secretary must assess the claimant’s present job qualifications, considering such factors as physical ability, age, education, and work experience. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A) (Supp. I 1983); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (1985). Second, the Secretary must consider whether there are jobs in the economy that a person with the claimant’s qualifications could perform. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1566-404.1569 (1985). ... Rarely, if ever, will he be able to sit for the six or more hours required by the regulations for sedentary work. ... The Secretary’s failure to accept the uncontradicted conclusions of the treating and consulting physicians and to heed the physical exertional requirements for sedentary work contained in the regulations and reinforced by case law deprives her decision of the requisite support by substantial evidence. Her decision must therefore be reversed.

Section 404.1520(f) requires consideration of whether a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work can perform other work, with the burden shifting to the Secretary to show available jobs in the national economy.

Wooten v. Heckler · filed 1986-01-24(f)

Consequently, plaintiff’s request for disability benefits and supplemental security income will be remanded to allow the AU to consider and determine whether plaintiff can perform any other work, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). The burden now shifts to the Secretary to show that there are jobs in the national economy which plaintiff can perform.

Section 404.1520(f) directs a finding that a claimant is not disabled when, considering the claimant’s age, education, past work, and residual functional capacity, the claimant can perform other work.

Stracciolini v. Heckler · filed 1986-06-30(f)

Considering claimant’s 41 years of age (20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 and 416.963), his marginal education (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564 and 416.964), the inability to perform his past relevant work as a truck driver, and his present ability to perform jobs such as checker or sorter, plaintiff’s medical and vocational characteristics fit within Rules 201.18-201.29 of Table No. 1. This conclusion directs a finding of one not disabled within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f).

At the fifth and final evaluation stage, § 404.1520(f) requires considering a claimant’s age, education, and work experience in light of residual functional capacity.

Oscar W. MOON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D. Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant · filed 1987-01-12(f)

In the fifth and final stage of evaluation, the factfinder considered the claimant’s age, education, and work experience in light of his residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (1986).

At step five of the disability determination, the Secretary must consider the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity in deciding whether the claimant can perform other work.

Harley T. TALBOT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appelle · filed 1987-03-16

The Secretary must consider the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, along with residual functional capacity, in determining whether a claimant can do other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1986).

Section 404.1520(f)(1) requires the Secretary to consider an individual's education, job experience, and residual physical capacity when determining whether the claimant can perform substantial gainful activity.

Mullins v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1987-06-26(f)(1)

In satisfying this burden, the Secretary must consider the individual’s education, job experience, residual physical capacity and education.

At step five, the ALJ considers the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to decide whether the claimant can adjust to other work; a finding that may omit limitations because the ALJ improperly discounted testimony lacks substantial evidence.

Gelow v. Saul · filed 2022-06-21(a)(4)(v)

To determine if an individual is “disabled” and eligible for benefits, an ALJ must conduct a five-step sequential process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... Here, because the ALJ erred in discounting K.G.’s testimony, his Step-Five finding may not include all of her limitations, and thus, is not based on substantial evidence.

At step three, the adjudicator determines whether a claimant's severe impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the criteria in the Listing of Impairments; if it does, the claimant is deemed disabled.

Bowser v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-02-07(a)(4)(iii)

Step three of the five step evaluation process directs the adjudicator to determine whether, in light of the objective medical evidence, the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals the criteria in the Listing of Impairments, described in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. ... If the adjudicator so finds, the claimant is deemed disabled.

If a claimant meets a listed impairment in Appendix 1, the claimant is determined disabled without considering age, education, or work experience.

Helen AMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1984-07-19(d)

If the claimant meets the listed impairment in Appendix 1, the claimant is determined disabled without considering age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled when a severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1.

Graves v. Heckler · filed 1985-04-25(d)

An individual is disabled if he has a severe impairment which “meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). The record shows that plaintiff suffers from functional nonpsychotic disorders as described in § 12.00 of Appendix 1, in that there is clinical evidence of “persistent, deeply ingrained, maladaptive patterns of behavior manifested by either: a. seelusiveness or autistic thinking; or b. pathologically inappropriate suspiciousness or hostility” and that this results in the persistence of a seriously impaired ability to relate to other people. See 20 C.F.R. § 404, Appendix 1, § 12.04. Thus, pursuant to the Secretary’s own regulations, plaintiff is disabled.

Section 404.1520(d) ends the sequential evaluation once a claimant is found disabled or not disabled, and deems a claimant disabled at step three when an impairment meets a listed impairment, without considering age, education, or work experience.

James A. HUTCHISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1986-04-25(d)

Should a person be determined disabled or not disabled at any stage of the above analysis, further inquiry pursuant to the analysis ceases. Accordingly, if a claimant's condition meets an impairment set forth in the listings, the claimant is adjudged disabled without considering age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant seeking disability based on a listed impairment or its equivalent to provide specific medical findings satisfying the applicable listing or medical evidence explaining the equivalence.

Noah C. BELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1986-08-14(d)

We hold that when a claimant contends that he has an impairment meeting the listed impairments entitling him to an adjudication of disability under regulation 404.1520(d), he must present specific medical findings that meet the various tests listed under the description of the applicable impairment or, if in the alternative he contends that he has an impairment which is equal to one of the listed impairments, the claimant must present medical evidence which describes how the impairment has such an equivalency.

Section 404.1520(d) provides disability benefits eligibility when an impairment meets or equals the criteria of a listed impairment.

Daniel L. LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Ap · filed 1987-07-20(d)

The Secretary concedes that if Lewis' impairment meets or equals the criteria of Listing Sec. 12.02, he would be eligible for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(d). ... Lewis established that he meets or equals the requirements of Listing Sec. 12.02.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability when a claimant’s impairment meets or equals an Appendix 1 listed impairment, without considering age, education, or work experience.

Terry W. BURESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-12-15(d)

When a claimant can show an impairment is listed in Appendix 1 (“the listings”), or is equal to a listed impairment, the AU must find the claimant disabled without consideration of the claimant’s age, education and work experience.

Section 404.1520(d) provides for an automatic disability determination when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; here, the claim had to rest on equaling the spinal disorder listing in § 1.05C.

Guardino v. Bowen · filed 1987-06-10(d)

Plaintiffs claim to an automatic disability determination under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) must therefore rest on equaling the spinal disorder listing in § 1.05C.

Section 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits when the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1.

Brannon W. TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1988-09-16(d)

A claimant, of course, is determined to be disabled and entitled to disability benefits when his impairment meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of the Secretary’s regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability when a claimant's condition meets or equals a listed impairment.

Hawke v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1991-11-08(d)

This prediction is anomalous to the regulations, which require a finding of disability if a claimant's condition meets or equals a listed impairment.

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as presumptively disabled when medical findings meet or equal a listed impairment, without regard to age, education, or vocational factors.

Drumright v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-02-01(d)

A claimant whose medical findings meet or equal the criteria of an entry in the Listing of Impairments is presumptively disabled without regard to age, education, and vocational factors.

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to find a claimant disabled when the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, without considering age, education, or work experience.

Bogyus v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-06-18

The Secretary must find that Bogyus is disabled if her condition meets or equals a listed impairment, without consideration of her age, education or work experience.

At the third step of the sequential evaluation, whether impairments meet or equal a listed impairment, a medical expert's opinion can constitute substantial evidence supporting the Secretary's determination.

Conn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-09-29

Furthermore, the medical expert's opinion that Conn's condition does not meet or equal a listed impairment, constitutes substantial evidence to support the Secretary's determination at the third step in the sequential evaluation under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920.

Section 404.1520(d) provides that meeting a listed impairment warrants a disability finding without regard to age, education, or work experience, making a residual-functional-capacity determination unnecessary.

Odorizzi v. Sullivan · filed 1993-10-21(d)

The reports of plaintiffs treating neurologist, Dr. Finkel, say that plaintiff suffered from a vertebrogenic disorder as described in the List of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 1.05(c). When a claimant’s affliction meets one of the listed impairments, a finding of disability is warranted without regard to the claimant’s age, education, or work experience. Such a finding obviates any need to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)-(e).

At the listing step, § 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability when a claimant's impairment meets or is medically equivalent to a listed impairment.

Connor v. Shalala · filed 1995-09-26(d)

If a claimant has an impairment which meets or is medically equivalent to one of the list of specific impairments found in 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1, the Social Security Administration must make a finding of disabled.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant to be found disabled when the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Lester v. Chater · filed 1995-11-03(d)

Even if a claimant’s mental impairment does not meet the criteria specified in the listings, he must be found disabled if his condition “is equal to” a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

At step three, § 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled only if the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Bunch v. Chater · filed 1996-07-05(d)

The Commissioner evaluates claims for disability benefits and supplemental income payments according to the five-step sequential evaluation process set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. ... At step three of the evaluation, however, the ALJ found Ms. Bunch "does not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically equal to one listed in [20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1]." See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). ... Given these medical observations and the ample evidence of Ms. Bunch's ability to function physically, we find substantial evidence supported ALJ's determination that Ms. Bunch's mental impairments did not meet the requirements of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 12.04(B) and 12.06(B).

Section 404.1520(a) ends the sequential disability review once the agency determines an applicant is or is not disabled, and subsection (d) treats an impairment meeting or equaling a listed impairment as conclusively disabling at step three.

Geil v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 1997-01-28(a), (d)

If at any point during the five-step, disability-determination process the agency determines that an applicant for benefits is or is not disabled, further review is not necessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). At the third step of the disability determination process, "[c]laimants are conclusively disabled if their condition either meets or equals a listed impairment [in Appendix 1]." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 (9th Cir.1995).

At step three, the agency strictly applies the listing criteria; meeting a listing establishes disability and ends further inquiry into the claimant’s symptoms, functional abilities, age, education, and work history.

Williams v. Apfel · filed 1999-05-06(d)

When determining whether an individual meets a listing, the agency strictly adheres to the listed criteria, because an individual who meets a listing is presumed disabled. In such a case, the agency inquires no further into the severity of the individual’s symptoms or his functional abilities, age, education, or work history.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a disability claimant to meet or equal a listed impairment in Appendix 1 to Part 404 to be found disabled at step three.

Holohan v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissionerof Ssa · filed 2001-04-17(d)

In order to qualify as disabled at step three of the evaluation, a claimant must meet or exceed the listed impairments in Appendix 1 to Part 404 of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d). In order to meet a listing in Appendix 1 for a mental disorder, a claimant must satisfy criteria in paragraph A of the listings, which medically substantiate the presence of a mental disorder, and the criteria in paragraphs B or C, which describe the functional limitations associated with the disorder which are incompatible with the ability to work. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 12.00A. ... Dr. Oh's opinion thus provides evidence that Holohan qualifies as disabled because she meets the impairments listed in Appendix 1. ... we conclude that Holohan qualifies as disabled at step three of the five step evaluation process. When properly considered, the evidence also indicates that a determination of not disabled would not be supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(d) requires SSA to find a claimant disabled without considering age, education, or work experience when the claimant has a durationally sufficient impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment.

Howard v. Apfel · filed 2001-07-10(d)

Pursuant to SSA regulations, if a claimant is found to "have an impairment(s) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in Appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment(s), [SSA] will find [the claimant] disabled without considering [the claimant's] age, education, and work experience." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability at step three when a claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, without considering age, education, or past work experience.

Moss v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-02-28(d)

Step three entails looking at whether the impairment is equivalent to one of a number of listed impairments that the Commissioner acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. ... If the impairment meets or is equivalent to one of the “listed” impairments, then the fact finder — without considering the claimant’s age, education or past work experience — automatically must make a finding that the claimant lacks the residual functional capacity to work. ... It is the claimant who has the burden of proving that her impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the Listings.

At step three of the disability evaluation, an impairment must meet or medically equal a listed impairment for the claimant to qualify on that basis.

MATUSKOWITZ v. Barnhart · filed 2004-11-24(d)

Thus the ALJ was required to determine whether these impairments met or equaled listed impairments in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)). ... This court agrees with the ALJ’s finding that Petitioner’s conditions did not equal impairments of listing severity.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant to be found disabled at the listing step when the claimant's impairment or combined impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

Nguyen v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-08(d)

Because the ALJ erred in finding Nguyen’s mental impairments nonsevere, he also erred in finding that Nguyen’s combined impairments did not meet or equal the listing for affective disorders or anxiety-related disorders under the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Crediting the opinions of Nguyen’s doctors, it is clear that he meets the requirements under these listings and is therefore disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

At step three, a claimant is considered disabled if the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Biswas v. Comm Social Security · filed 2007-02-26(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant automatically is considered disabled if his or her impairment meets or medically equals an impairment listed in the Social Security regulations, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled, ending the evaluation, when the claimant's severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Meyler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-08-28(d)

If the impairment is found “severe,” the ALJ determines whether the impairment meets or is equal to those impairments in the Listing of Impairments. ... If so, the claimant is presumed disabled, and the evaluation ends. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... After a review of the record, the Court finds substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision.

At step 3, disability is found without considering age, education, or work experience when the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; the claimant bears the burden of proving that all listing criteria are met or equaled.

Curry v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-30(d)

The Commissioner’s rules provide that if the claimant has an impairment that is listed in or equal to an impairment listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, following 20 C.F.R. § 404.1599, then a finding of disability will be made at Step 3 without considering the claimant’s age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... In summary, the burden of proof is upon Plaintiff at step 3 to prove that her condition meets or equals all of the criteria of a Listing. The spirometry testing in 2007, after Plaintiff had stopped smoking, was closer to the date of the ALJ’s decision, and contained all of the information specified by the Listing, indicating that Plaintiff had used her best efforts. Plaintiff has not shown that she met her burden of proof at step 3. Consequently, the court should reject this first argument.

Section 404.1520(d) makes a claimant eligible for disability benefits when an impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

Whalen v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-30(d)

Under the Social Security regulations, a claimant is eligible for disability benefits if she has an impairment or combination of impairments which meet or equal an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments. ... A claimant seeking disability benefits bears the burden of proving that her condition meets or equals a listed impairment. ... In conducting a listing analysis, the ALJ should mention the specific listing or listings he is considering, and his failure to do so, if combined with a perfunctory analysis, may require a remand. ... The ALJ commits reversible error if he fails to discuss a specific listing or provide a thorough analysis if there is conflicting evidence about whether the claimant meets a specific Listing. ... Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ’s determination supported by substantial evidence.

At step three, a claimant is disabled when the severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Carlson v. Astrue · filed 2010-01-21(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the severe impairment meets or equals an impairment “listed” in the regulations. 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment is determined to equal a listed impairment, the claimant is disabled.

At step three, a claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, or work experience when a severe impairment meets or medically equals an Appendix 1 listing for the required duration.

Franco v. Astrue · filed 2010-01-26(d)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d), if the claimant’s severe impairment meets or medically equals the criteria lists in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and the claimant has suffered the severe impairment for the required duration, the claimant is considered disabled regardless of age, education, or work experience, and the analysis need not proceed further.

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled when the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Molnar v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-26(d)

A claimant is presumed disabled if she has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d); 404.1525(a); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.

At step three, if an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and satisfies the duration requirement, the claimant is found disabled.

Rice ex rel. T.C.K. v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-06(a)(4)(iii)

Accordingly, a claimant who meets or equals a Listing is “conclusively presumed to be disabled and entitled to benefits.” ... “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.” ... The ALJ found that Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments. (T at 14). In support of this finding, the ALJ referenced a single piece of evidence — an assessment provided by Manrique Quinto, a non-examining State Agency review physician, who opined that Claimant’s impairments were severe, but did not meet or medically equal a Listing. (T at 249). This Court finds that the ALJ’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence.

At step three, § 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant is disabled when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; the ALJ must identify the applicable listing and give more than a perfunctory analysis.

Wiszowaty v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-21(d)

As set forth above in the Disability Standard, “a claimant is eligible for benefits if [he] has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments.” ... (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1). “In considering whether a claimant’s condition meets or equals a listed impairment, the ALJ must discuss the listing by name and offer more than a perfunctory analysis of the listing.”

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires a finding of disability when the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1 and satisfies the duration requirement.

Goodale v. Astrue · filed 2012-12-13(a)(4)(iii)

Impairments listed in Appendix 1 of the Social Security Regulations (“the Listings”) are “acknowledged by the [Commissioner] to be of sufficient severity to preclude” substantial gainful activity. Accordingly, a claimant who meets -or equals a Listing is “conclusively presumed to be disabled and entitled to benefits.” ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii) (“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.”).

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires a finding of disability when the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals an Appendix 1 listing and satisfies the duration requirement.

Wojciechowski v. Colvin · filed 2013-08-26(a)(4)(iii)

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.

At Step 3, disability requires both an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment and satisfaction of the applicable duration requirement.

Radford v. Colvin · filed 2013-10-29(a)(4)(iii)

Under Step 3, the regulation states that a claimant will be found disabled if he or she has an impairment that “[1] meets or equals one of our listings in appendix 1 of this subpart and [2] meets the duration requirement.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) (emphasis added). The critical durational inquiry for purposes of awarding benefits is whether the impairment has lasted or is expected to last “for a continuous period of at least 12 months.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 (“How long the impairment must last”).

At step three, a claimant whose severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment is deemed disabled without further analysis.

Moran v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-08-22(a)(4)(iii)

Claimants with severe impairments that meet or equal a listing in the Appendix are deemed disabled without further analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At Step Three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, but need not discuss a listing absent a substantial question that the claimant could satisfy every requirement.

Smith-Johnson v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2014-09-08(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three, the ALJ considers the medical severity of the impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment meets or equals one of the Social Security Listings and meets the durational requirement, then the ALJ will find the claimant disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... The ALJ should discuss the relevant listing, however, where the record raises “a substantial question as to whether [the claimant] could qualify as disabled” under a listing. ... Absent such evidence, the ALJ does not commit reversible error by failing to evaluate a listing at Step Three. ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not commit reversible error in failing to assess Smith-Johnson’s cognitive abilities under Step Three, and we affirm the district court’s judgment, although under the diagnostic definition, rather than the severity criteria, of Listing 12.05(C).

At step three, the regulation requires determining whether a claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, which conclusively establishes disability if the required severity is shown.

Himes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-09-26(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, a claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled if he meets or equals the level of severity of a listed impairment, or Listing. Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 1997); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), (d); id. §§ 404.1526, 416.926 (discussing medical equivalency).

At the third step of the disability-benefits inquiry, § 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to decide whether the claimant’s severe impairments meet or equal a listed disabling condition and, if so, find the claimant disabled without further review.

Potts v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-02(a)(4)(iii)

Social Security Administration regulations establish a five-step inquiry to determine a claimant’s entitlement to benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). At the third step, the Commissioner must determine whether an applicant’s severe impairments “meet[] or equal[]” disabling conditions that are listed in an appendix to the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), (d). If the Commissioner determines that they do, the Commissioner must find the applicant disabled without any additional review. Id.

At step three, the regulation requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; if they do, the claimant is disabled.

Madrick v. Colvin · filed 2016-08-08(d)

At step three of - the sequential evaluation- process, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal one of the listings in Subpart P, Appendix -l, ... for if she does, she is disabled.

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ, at step three, to determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

Greathouse v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-08-28(d)

In the third step of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ is required to determine whether the claimant’s impairments or combination of impairments meets or equals any of the listed impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d).

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment, in which case the claimant is presumptively eligible for benefits.

Zellweger v. Saul · filed 2018-12-17(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ determines whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal “an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments”; if so, the “claimant is presumptively eligible for benefits.” Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 935 (7th Cir. 2015); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, § 404.1520(d) requires a claimant to establish that an impairment met or medically equaled every criterion of a listed impairment during the period of eligibility.

McHenry v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-26(d)

To be sure, McHenry bore the burden to show that her back pain met or medically equaled all the criteria under Listing 1.04A between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520, 404.1526(a); Maggard v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 376, 380 (7th Cir. 1999). “An impairment that manifests only some of [the required criteria], no matter how severely, does not qualify.”

At step three, § 404.1520(d) requires deciding whether the claimant met or medically equaled a listed impairment during the relevant period.

Croffoot v. Saul · filed 2019-07-11(d)

Plaintiff only had to establish that she met the Listing at some time during the relevant period and that those Listing criteria lasted for a duration of at least 12 months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1509.

Section 404.1520(d) makes a claimant presumptively eligible for benefits when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

RICHMOND JR. v. SAUL · filed 2019-08-12(d)

If a claimant has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments, a claimant is presumptively eligible for benefits. Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 935 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)).

At step three, a claimant is disabled if her impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Asbury v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step in the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairments meet or equal a listing in the Listing of Impairments.

At step three, the disability evaluation asks whether the claimant’s severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if it does not, the evaluation continues.

Ostrander v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-28(a)(4)(iii)

Does the claimant’s severe impairment “meet or equal” one or more of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1? If so, then the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment does not meet or equal one or more of the listed impairments, the analysis continues. ... Because Plaintiff did not satisfy the B criteria, he did not meet the requirements for listing 12.11. For these reasons, the ALJ’s failure to consider Listing 12.11 was not error.

At step three, the ALJ must evaluate whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Bly v. Commisioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-16(d)

At Step Three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s impairments to determine whether they meet or medically equal any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999).

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled when the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Enfelt v. Saul · filed 2019-09-23(d)

Under the SSA’s regulations, a claimant is presumed disabled if he or she has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App’x 1.

At step three, a claimant qualifies as disabled by meeting or exceeding the criteria for a listed impairment in Appendix 1 to Part 404.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(d)

To qualify as disabled at step three of the sequential evaluation, a claimant must meet or exceed the criteria for one of the listed impairments in Appendix 1 to Part 404 of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

At the third step of the disability determination, a claimant must satisfy the durational requirement and show that the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Hutchison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(d)

At step three, the claimant must “demonstrate that her impairment meets the durational requirement and ‘meets or equals a listed impairment.’”

At step three, a claimant qualifies for benefits when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Buss, Agnes v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2019-10-31(d)

[A] claimant is eligible for benefits if she has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments.

Section 404.1520 places the burden on the claimant to show that an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Maestas v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-12

The claimant bears the burden of showing that the impairment meets or medically equals a listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. “For a claimant to show that his impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (emphasis in original).

At step three, a claimant is disabled if the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, and the adjudicator must evaluate the evidence against the listing criteria and explain the conclusion.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-12(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. Appx. 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). ... To facilitate meaningful judicial review, the ALJ needed to actually evaluate the medical evidence, compare it to the severity criteria in subparts A, B, and C of Listing 1.04, and provide an explained conclusion. See Reynolds, 424 F. Appx at 416.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant seeking disability based on a listed impairment to meet all specified medical criteria in that listing.

Romich v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-22(d)

In order to be considered disabled per se under a listed impairment, a claimant must meet all the specified medical criteria in the listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995).

Section 404.1520 places on the claimant the burden of showing that an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Grimm v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-25

The claimant bears the burden of showing that the impairment meets or medically equals a listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. “For a claimant to show that his impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990). An impairment is “equivalent” to a listed impairment if there are medical findings “at least of equal medical significance to the required criteria.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.926.

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether any severe impairment, alone or in combination with other impairments, meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does, disability is automatic.

Ortman v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-13(d)

Step 3 of the sequential evaluation requires the ALJ to determine whether any of the claimant’s severe impairments, alone or in combination, meets or equals an impairment that is listed at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1 (a “Listing”). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If any such impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a Listing, a finding of disability is automatic. Id.; Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418, 424 (8th Cir. 2003).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) provides that a claimant who meets or medically equals a listed impairment is found disabled without considering age, education, or work experience.

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

If his medical evidence indicated that he met or equaled that listed impairment, then Plaintiff would be found disabled without further consideration of age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant is presumptively eligible for benefits when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Gehrke v. Saul · filed 2020-01-28(d)

If a claimant has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments, a claimant is presumptively eligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); see also, Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2004).

At step three, a claimant is disabled if the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and the impairment must satisfy all specified criteria of that listing.

Hurd v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2020-01-29(a)(4)(iii), (d)

A claimant’s impairment must meet or equal all of the specified medical criteria in a particular Listing for the claimant to be found disabled at step three of the sequential evaluation.

At step three of the sequential evaluation, § 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability when a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Young v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-05(d)

At step three, the ALJ must conclude the claimant is disabled if he or she proves that his or her impairments meet or are medically equivalent to one of the impairments contained in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (step three of sequential process); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app’x 1 (Listing of Impairments).

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as conclusively disabled when the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Ross v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-21(d)

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “[c]onditions contained in the Listing of Impairments are considered so severe that they are irrebuttably presumed disabling, without any specific finding as to the claimant’s ability to perform his past relevant work or any other jobs.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Accordingly, “[c]laimants are conclusively disabled if their condition either meets or equals a listed impairment.” Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant’s severe impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1; if it does, the claimant is disabled.

Salas v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-24(a)(4)(iii)

The third step of the sequential analysis requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s severe impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the regulation known as Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. § pt. 404, subpt. p, app. 1 [hereinafter “App. 1”]. If so, the claimant is disabled.

At step three, the claimant is evaluated to determine whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; meeting or equaling a listing results in a presumption of disability.

Nolan v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-03(d)

The third step requires a determination of whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed in the Code of Federal Regulations and is acknowledged by the Commissioner as sufficiently severe to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P. App. 1; Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004). If the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the plaintiff is presumed disabled. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141.

Section 404.1520(d) requires the Commissioner to find a claimant disabled without considering age, education, or work experience when the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and the duration requirement.

Gutierrez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-17(d)

“When your impairment(s) meets or equals a listed impairment in appendix 1. If you have and impairment(s) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairments(s), [the Commissioner] will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.”

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

Greenwalt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(d)

At step three of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals a condition contained in the listings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

At step three, the claimant must show that an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1.

Robinson v. Commissioner · filed 2020-03-23(d)

At the third step, a claimant has the burden of demonstrating she has an impairment that meets or medically equals a listing in Appendix 1. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Burgess v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 835 F.2d 139, 140 (6th Cir. 1987).

At step three, an ALJ finds a claimant disabled when the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment and satisfies the applicable duration requirement.

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

If the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and meets the 12-month duration requirement, the adjudicator will find the claimant disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a). ... Although Plaintiff recites the text of each listing and then sets out some facts after each, she offers no analysis of the requirements of each listing nor does she attempt to show how the medical evidence supports each element of each listing. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden and that substantial evidence supports that ALJ’s step three finding as set forth below.

At step three, the agency considers the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments and finds disability if an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and the duration requirement.

MOLESKY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-27(a)(4)(iii)

At Step 3, the ALJ is required to analyze all of the impairments that were recognized as severe at Step Two. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) (requiring that “[a]t the third step, we also consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). 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”). Step 3 of the analysis provides that “when . . . an individual’s impairment . . . meets or equals the level of severity described in the Listing, and also meets the durational requirement, disability will be found on the basis of the medical facts alone in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” Social Security Ruling 86-8, 1986 SSR LEXIS 15 (hereinafter “SSR 86-8”).

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s severe impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Vasquez v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-19(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s severe impairments, either separately or in combination, meet or equal one of the presumptively disabling impairments listed in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); see 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I. ... The ALJ committed no error at step three of the sequential analysis.

At step three, the ALJ determines whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; meeting or equaling a listing conclusively establishes disability without regard to age, education, or work experience.

Hancock v. Saul · filed 2020-06-12(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three, the ALJ evaluates whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or equals an impairment in the “Listing of Impairments” (referred to as the “listings”). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404 Subpt. P, App. 1. The listings describe impairments that are considered “to be severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity.” Id. § 404.1525(a). Each impairment is described in terms of “the objective medical and other findings needed to satisfy the criteria of that listing.” Id. § 404.1525(c)(3). “For a claimant to show that his impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (footnote omitted). If a claimant’s impairment either meets the listed criteria for the diagnosis or is medically equivalent to the criteria of the diagnosis, he is conclusively presumed to be disabled, without considering age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Here, the ALJ determined Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets the listings. AR 18.

At step three, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether a severe impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does and satisfies the duration requirement, the claimant is disabled without considering age, education, or work experience.

Powley v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-16(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three, the ALJ is tasked with determining if one or more of a claimant’s severe impairments “meets or equals” one of the presumptively disabling impairments listed in the SSA regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). “If you have an impairment which meets the duration requirement and is listed in [20 C.F.R. Part. 404, Subpart P,] [A]ppendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment, the SSA will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). ... While the determination regarding whether Plaintiff’s impairment meets or equals a listing is reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must properly consider the medical evidence in the record. Because, as discussed above, the ALJ did not properly consider Dr. Cohan’s opinion, this issue must be reconsidered on remand.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii)(d) requires the ALJ, after finding a severe impairment at step two, to determine at step three whether the impairment meets the criteria of a listed impairment.

Wacha v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-19(a)(4)(iii)(d)

In general, if an ALJ determines a plaintiff has a severe mental or physical impairment at step two of the disability evaluation procedure, the ALJ must then determine whether the impairment meets the criteria of any impairment listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii)(d).

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability when a claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1, without considering age, education, or work experience.

Salahuddin v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-10(d)

Accordingly, “[a] claimant is automatically entitled to benefits if his or her impairment(s) meets the criteria set forth in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) . . . .” ... The record in this matter provides substantial evidence that plaintiff’s impairments satisfied Listing § 1.04(A) of Appendix 1.

Section 404.1520(d) makes a claimant eligible for benefits at step three when the claimant has an impairment that meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

St. John v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16(d)

A claimant is eligible for benefits if he has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the listing of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) makes a claimant eligible for benefits when the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment in the listings.

Mullen v. Saul · filed 2020-08-12(d)

A claimant is eligible for benefits if he has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the listing of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant who meets or equals a listed impairment is considered disabled without further inquiry.

Shane v. Saul · filed 2020-09-08(d)

If a claimant meets or equals a Listing, the claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether a claimant’s severe impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Lindsey v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-17(d)

At step three of the sequential analysis the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s severe impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the regulation known as Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. ... Because, as set forth above, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Lindsey failed to show limitation in adaptive functioning prior to age 22, Lindsey cannot meet the criteria of Listing 12.05. Therefore, even if the ALJ erred in finding Lindsey to have only moderate or mild limitations in the four domains of mental functioning set forth in 12.05B(2), the error was harmless in light of the fact that she failed to meet other Listing criteria.

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant who meets or equals a listed impairment as disabled without further inquiry.

Perkins v. Saul · filed 2020-09-18(d)

A diagnosis alone is insufficient; a medically-determinable impairment must also satisfy all of the criteria of the Listing, 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(d), and Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that an impairment satisfies the requirements of the Listing, Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-1099; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If a claimant meets or equals a Listing, the claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520(d) makes a claimant automatically disabled when the claimant meets a listed impairment, so the ALJ need not assess residual functional capacity or continue to steps four and five.

(SS) Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(d)

The Social Security Regulations’ “Listing of Impairments” identifies impairments to fifteen categories of body systems that are considered severe enough to preclude employment. See Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 183-84 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Conditions described in the listings are automatically disabling if the requirements of that listing are met. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Thus, if a claimant meets the criteria for a listing, the ALJ need not determine claimant’s RFC and does not proceed to steps four and five. See id.

At step three, § 404.1520(d) requires the decision-maker to determine whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

Nocchi v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-30(d)

At step three in the SEP, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments either meet or equal one of the listings of presumptively disabling impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.152620, 416.920(a)(4)(iii). The Tenth Circuit has explained that, in determining a claimant does not meet or equal any listed impairment at step three, the ALJ must “discuss the evidence and explain why he found that the [claimant] was not disabled at step three” in order to provide the court with the guidance necessary to perform “meaningful judicial review.” Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment; meeting a listing requires satisfying all specified medical criteria.

TUCKER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2020-10-23(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or equals the severity of one of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 416.920(a)(4)(iii). An impairment meets a listed impairment if it satisfies “‘all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.’”

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to decide whether a severe impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment; a favorable finding establishes disability without considering age, education, or work experience.

MCNALLY v. SAUL · filed 2020-10-29(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine whether a severe impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the medical equivalent of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.925, 416.926. If the ALJ determines that a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listing, then the claimant is considered disabled, without considering the claimant’s age, education or work experience. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

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

KUHL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-11-06(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or equals the severity of any of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... Here, although the ALJ did not explicitly refer to the criteria of Listing 14.09 at step three, “the ALJ’s decision, read as a whole, illustrates that the ALJ considered the appropriate factors in reaching the conclusion that [the Claimant] did not meet the requirements for any listing, including” Listing 14.09.

At step three, a claimant is disabled if her impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment; when the evidence appears to match a listing, the ALJ must explain why the listing is not met.

Ivey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-23(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant is disabled if her impairments meet or medically equal the specific requirements of a medical Listing in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... “[T]he ALJ is required to explain why a claimant failed to meet or equal the Listings [w]here the claimant’s symptoms as described by the medical evidence appear to match those described in the Listings.” ... Even where, as here, a claimant “appears to meet at least some of the requirements of a listing, the ALJ is obligated to explain the reasons for finding that the listing is not met.”

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment; meeting or equaling a listing means the claimant is disabled.

Hamadi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-24(d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant's impairments to determine whether they meet or medically equal any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). If they do, the claimant is deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires evaluating whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

ANDERSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-12-09(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or equals the severity of one of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... In short, considering the opinion as a whole, see Jones, 364 F.3d at 505, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s obesity at step three and at subsequent steps when he recognized Plaintiff’s obesity as a severe impairment, recognized that he must consider the effect of Plaintiff’s obesity on his other impairments, found that none of Plaintiff’s impairments, whether considered singly or in combination, met or equaled a listed impairment, and specifically and in detail considered Plaintiff’s musculoskeletal impairment—and the limitations imposed by that impairment—in determining Plaintiff’s RFC.

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment, and the claimant must show medical findings equal in severity to all criteria of the most similar listing.

Austin v. Saul · filed 2020-12-17(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ did not err in concluding that Austin’s disabilities did not “meet[] or equal[]” a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... b. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Austin’s impairments are not equivalent to Listing 1.04, “disorders of the spine.” 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, Listing 1.04. To show equivalence with a listed impairment, the claimant “must present medical findings equal in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar listed impairment.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990). ... These findings support the conclusion that the additional criteria of “motor loss (. . . muscle weakness)” (Listing 1.04A) or “inability to ambulate effectively” (Listing 1.04C) were not met. In light of these findings, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Austin failed to show that her impairments “result[ed] in compromise of a nerve root . . . or the spinal cord” that was “equivalent in severity” to Listing 1.04.

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a claimant’s severe impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

McGuire v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-05(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s severe impairment “meet[s] or equal[s]” one or more of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“the Listings”). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... Therefore, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s step three finding that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal Listings 12.04, 12.06, and 12.08.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant to meet all specified medical criteria in a listed impairment to be considered disabled per se.

Esparza v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-12(d)

In order to be considered disabled per se under a listed impairment, a claimant must meet all the specified medical criteria in the listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995). ... The Court rejects Plaintiff’s arguments and finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of” Listing 1.05. (R. at 20.) The ALJ expressly considered whether Plaintiff meets Listing 1.05 but found that Plaintiff does not have an amputation that the listing requires. (Id.)

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, but requires proof equivalent in severity to all criteria of the most similar listing.

Harrison v. Saul · filed 2021-02-25(d)

If a claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, a claimant is per se disabled under the regulations. 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(d); Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119. However, to qualify for benefits by showing that an impairment, or combination of impairments, is equivalent to a listed impairment, the claimant bears the burden of presenting “medical findings equivalent in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar impairment.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990) (emphasis in original); 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(d). An impairment, no matter how severe, that meets or equals only some of the criteria for a listed impairment is not sufficient. Zebley, 493 U.S. at 521.

Section 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant is presumptively eligible for benefits when the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Holcomb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-26(d)

If a claimant has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments, a claimant is presumptively eligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... “In considering whether a claimant's condition meets or equals a listed impairment, an ALJ must discuss the listing by name and offer more than perfunctory analysis of the listing.” ... Due to Plaintiff’s extensive medical records showing severe findings regarding his spine disorders, which do not appear to have been analyzed by the ALJ with respect to his condition possibly being medically equal to Listing 1.04, remand is warranted.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and § 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant who meets or equals a Listing is considered disabled without further inquiry.

Dominguez v. Saul · filed 2021-03-02(a)(4)(iii), (d)

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

At step three, § 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination meets or medically equals a listed impairment and to explain the determination sufficiently for meaningful judicial review.

Alt v. Saul · filed 2021-03-10(d)

At step three of the ALJ’s Five-Step Analysis, the ALJ must assess a claimant’s impairments or combination of impairments and determine whether they are of a severity to meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, and 404.1526). ... The Court finds this reasoning insufficient for meaningful review. ... The ALJ failed to specify why each element of Listing 1.04, was not met.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether a severe medically determinable impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Gensler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(a)(4)(iii)

“When an ALJ finds that a claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is ‘severe,’ the ALJ must determine whether the identified ‘impairment(s) meets or equals a listed impairment in appendix 1.’”

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) makes step three the point at which the agency determines whether a claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment, and failure at that step means the claimant does not receive the conclusive presumption of disability.

Halperin v. Saul · filed 2021-04-06(a)(4)(iii)

Had Halperin prevailed at step three, she would have been entitled to a conclusive presumption of disability. See Radford, 734 F.3d at 291; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d).

At step three, the ALJ assesses whether the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment, and a listing is met only when all specified criteria are satisfied.

DERCOLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-04-14(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or equals the severity of any one of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). An impairment meets a listed impairment if it satisfies “‘all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.’” Jones, 364 F.3d at 504 (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990)) (emphasis in original). “A claimant cannot qualify for benefits under the ‘equivalence’ step by showing that the overall functional impact of his unlisted impairment or combination of impairments is as severe as that of a listed impairment.” Zebley, at 531 (emphasis added).

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the adjudicator to determine whether the claimant’s medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment based on a proper evaluation of the record.

ARMONE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-05-25(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or equals the severity of one of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). An impairment meets a listed impairment if it satisfies “‘all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.’”

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant to meet all specified medical criteria in a listed impairment to be considered disabled per se.

Kittridge v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-03(d)

In order to be considered disabled per se under a listed impairment, a claimant must meet all the specified medical criteria in the listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995).

At step three, a claimant is disabled if the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Burch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-16(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). The Listing of Impairments, set forth in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations, describes impairments the Social Security Administration considers to be “severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity, regardless of his or her age, education, or work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a). Each listing specifies “the objective medical and other findings needed to satisfy the criteria of that listing.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(c)(3). A claimant must satisfy all the criteria to “meet” the listing and be deemed disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(c)(3) and (d); Hale v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 816 F.2d 1078, 1083 (6th Cir. 1984). However, a claimant is also deemed disabled if her impairment is the medical equivalent of a listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); Turner, 381 F. Appx. at 491.

At step three, the disability evaluation requires determining whether the claimant meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-22(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three, an ALJ is required to determine whether the claimant meets or equals any of the listed impairments found in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, Appendix 1. Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 670 (7th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, a claimant is disabled if the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a listed impairment.

Armagost v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-16(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant is per se disabled if his impairments meet or medically equal one of the specific requirements of a listing in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires evaluating whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Pearson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-03(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ also neglected to examine whether the combination of the plaintiff’s impairments—severe and non-severe—would meet or medically equal the severity of a listed impairment. ... Price, 298 F. Supp. 3d 517, 525 (stating “the third step is to determine whether the impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals one of the listings in Appendix 1 of the regulations”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii)).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

SPOONER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-08-05(a)(4)(iii)

Under step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is equal to, or exceeds, one of those included in the Listing of Impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... As Plaintiff failed to present sufficient medical evidence to establish she met the requirements of Listing 3.02, this Court finds that ALJ Lissek correctly determined that Plaintiff’s condition did not meet or equal Listing 3.02 for chronic respiratory disorders. (R. 17.)

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the Commissioner at step three to determine whether a claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does not, the evaluation continues.

DIAZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-08-17(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is of a severity to meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, a disability is conclusively established, and the claimant is entitled to benefits. Jones, 364 F.3d at 503. If not, the analysis proceeds. ... Second, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s analysis at step three. In concluding that Plaintiff’s mental impairments did not meet or equal the criteria of listing in subsection 12.04 singly or in combination, the ALJ extensively considered relevant medical evidence in the record.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine at step three whether a claimant’s impairment(s) meets or equals a Listing in appendix 1.

Vickers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(a)(4)(iii)

The Administration’s regulations require the ALJ to determine if a claimant’s impairment(s) “meets or equals one of our listings in appendix 1.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Thus, it was proper for the ALJ to evaluate Vickers’ symptoms in relation to the existing Listings. More accurately, the Administration’s regulations required her to do so.

Section 404.1520 requires the adjudicator at Step Three to consider whether the claimant’s impairments, individually or in combination, meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

McGowan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-01(a)(4)(iii)

Step Three, which can be dispositive, requires consideration of whether a claimant’s conditions, individually or in combination, (1) meet or (2) equal a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 404.1525, 404.1526.

At step three, a claimant is disabled if an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and satisfies the duration requirement.

Gist v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(a)(4)(iii)

Step 3 of the disability insurance benefits review process states that “[i]f [the claimant has] 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) (emphasis added).