20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires an ALJ to determine at step three whether a claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment; a claimant who satisfies that requirement is disabled and eligible for benefits.

Riley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-19(a)(4)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider whether the claimant’s impairments meet Social Security Listing requirements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment is listed or is medically equivalent to a listed impairment, the claimant is found disabled and benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires an ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant's medically determinable impairments, singly or in combination, meet or equal a listed impairment.

COVINGTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-28(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.’” 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.” Sullivan, 493 U.S. at 531 (emphasis added). “[T]he medical criteria defining the listed impairments [are set] at a higher level of severity than the statutory standard” because the “listings define impairments that would prevent an adult, regardless of his age, education, or work experience, from performing any gainful activity, not just ‘substantial gainful activity.’” Id. at 532 (emphasis in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(a)). Although an ALJ is not required to use “particular language” when determining whether a claimant meets a listing, the ALJ’s discussion must provide for “meaningful review.” Jones, 364 F.3d at 505 (citing Burnett, 220 F.3d at 120). Accordingly, if 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,” “[t]his discussion satisfies Burnett’s requirement that there be sufficient explanation to provide meaningful review of the step three determination.” Id.

At step three, Section 404.1520 requires a finding of disability when a claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Wright v. Comm'r · filed 2021-09-29(d)

The Commissioner has a five-step process for assessing whether a claimant is disabled under 42 U.S.C. § 423. ... At the third step, the Commissioner probes whether the claimant’s ailments are among or equal to the “‘listed’ impairments” set forth in the appendix to the Social Security regulations. Dixon, 54 F.3d at 1022 (citation omitted). A claimant whose condition meets one of these impairments is entitled to benefits. 404 C.F.R. § 1520(a)(4)(iii). ... The records, however, do not show that he meets the listed impairment definition for any condition; they demonstrate only that he complained of poor sleep.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires an ALJ at step three to determine whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, and the claimant must satisfy every element of the Listing to be found disabled.

Pickrell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-14(a)(4)(iii)

A plaintiff’s impairment must meet every element of a Listing before the Commissioner may conclude that he or she is disabled at step three of the sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 855 (6th Cir. 1986). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing that he met the criteria for any relevant subsection of Listing 1.04.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires an ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment, and the explanation may be found in the decision as a whole if it permits meaningful review.

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

Pertinent regulations provide a five-step evaluation procedure to determine whether an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... If claimants satisfy the first two steps, the third step requires claimants to provide evidence that their impairments are equal to at least one of the impairments within the Listing of Impairments under Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“Listings’’) of the relevant Social Security regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). ... At step three, ALJs must provide “some discussion” of their determination, but “need not ‘use particular language or adhere to a particular format in conducting [their] analysis,’ as long as ‘there 1s sufficient development of the record and explanation of findings to permit meaningful review.’” Holloman v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 639 F. App’x 810, 814 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing Jones □□ Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2004)). ... Reviewing the Decision as a whole, the Court finds no error at step three. To start, the ALJ considered the Listings in reaching her conclusions. (AR 16.) Beyond just considering them in the abstract, the ALJ addressed each impairment in subsequent parts of her Decision, as well as facts that negate an essential element of each Listing. Cosme v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 845 F. App’x 128, 132 (3d Cir. 2021) (finding that even though the ALJ provided a conclusory statement as to why plaintiff’s impairments did not meet the matching Listing, subsequent discussions in the ALJ’s decision of the impairment provided sufficient explanation).

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

McGonagle v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-17(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must determine whether the individual’s severe impairment meets or equals the criteria of any impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations (“listings”). ... If an individual’s impairment, or combination of impairments, matches the requirements of the relevant listing, then the individual is disabled. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires an ALJ, at step three of the sequential evaluation, to determine whether the claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

Parker v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-29(a)(4)(iii)

The Commissioner of Social Security uses a five-step, sequential evaluation process to determine if a claimant is entitled to benefits. At Step 3, an ALJ must determine whether the person’s impairments meet or equal an impairment in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1525, 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.925; 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P., app. 1.

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

Blake v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(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).

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.

Landers v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-21(d)

At Step 3 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s severe impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings found in the regulation known as Appendix 1. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). ... I have reviewed the ALJ’s decision, and the ALJ clearly considered all of the relevant medical opinions.

Section 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant is disabled when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment and the applicable duration requirement is satisfied.

Pattee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-01(d)

As the ALJ explained, step three of the sequential process for evaluating disability claims involves determining whether the claimant’s impairments “meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1” of the Social Security regulations. [AR at 18.] These “Listings” address many categories of medical conditions and specify the criteria for impairments that are presumptively disabling. If both a Listing and a duration requirement are met, the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) provides that a claimant is disabled when her impairments or combination thereof meet or equal a listed impairment.

Berman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-06(a)(4)(iii)

The Report and Recommendation should instead have stated that a claimant is disabled if her impairments or combination thereof meet or equal a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i11).

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

Briggs v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-06(d)

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

At Step Three, an ALJ must find a claimant disabled if the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Tuel v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-30(a)(iii)

At Step Three, the ALJ must find a claimant disabled if the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(iii).

At Step Three, the regulation requires a claimant to be found disabled if the claimant meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Spring v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-17(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ is required to a find a claimant disabled if he meets or medically equals a listing. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990).

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant to establish that an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment at step three; otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to the next step.

Kitt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-28(a)(4)(iii), (d)–(e)

At step three, a claimant has the burden of showing that she has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 345 (6th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If claimant meets all criteria for a listing, she is disabled; otherwise, an ALJ must proceed to the next step in the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)–(e).

Subsection (d) provides that a claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry when the claimant meets or equals a listed impairment.

Green v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-20(d)

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

At step three, an ALJ evaluates whether the claimant's medically determinable impairments, alone or in combination, meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

TIMPANI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-05-08(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).

Section 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant is found disabled at step three when the claimant meets or medically equals a listed impairment, without further inquiry.

(SS) Cerda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-23(d)

At Step Three, the ALJ determines whether “a claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in [20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1].” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999). The Listing of Impairments describes specific impairments of each of the major body systems “which are considered severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525). If a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment he or she will be found disabled at this step without further inquiry. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)). ... However, Plaintiff does not specify which of these listings she meets, nor how she meets the Listing. She has therefore not satisfied her burden of proving her impairments satisfy all the criteria of a particular listing. ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not err at Step Three.

At step three, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to evaluate whether a claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

Forsberg v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-07(a)(4)(iii), (d)

As relevant here, where a claimant is found to have at least one severe impairment at step two of the sequential process, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), step three requires the ALJ to evaluate whether the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. See C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), and (d); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525; see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). ... Because Plaintiff does not claim that he is disabled due to epilepsy, the absence of evidence in the record demonstrating that Plaintiff suffered from dyscognitive seizures is irrelevant. Rather, when migraine headaches are not a specific listed impairment, the ALJ is required to “assess whether [Plaintiff’s] migraines are equal in severity and duration to the criteria in Listing 11.02D—not that they are one in the same.”

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant's medically determinable impairments, alone or in combination, meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

MOOG v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-07-14(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 of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At Step Three, a claimant is found disabled if the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Nagel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-20(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three of the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if his impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, § 404.1520 provides that a claimant is presumed disabled if an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Hembree v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-26(a)(4)(iii), (d)

If a claimant meets or medically equals a listed impairment at step three of the sequential analysis, he is presumed disabled regardless of age, education, or work experience. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff failed to meet Listing 14.02.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires an ALJ to find a claimant disabled if the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Bowers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-20(a)(4)(iii)

The Social Security regulations require the ALJ to find a claimant disabled if he meets or medically equals a listing. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to consider at step three whether a claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment, and treats a qualifying impairment as conclusively disabling.

Devlin v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-03(a)(4)(iii), (d)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ is required to consider whether the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the ALJ finds the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment, the claimant is conclusively presumed disabled without consideration of the claimant’s age, education, or work experience. Id. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate at step three whether a claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment and provides for disability when they do.

Worth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-27(a)(4)(iii), (d)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider whether the claimant’s impairments meet Social Security Listing requirements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment is listed or is medically equivalent to a listed impairment, the claimant is found disabled and benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d); 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires an ALJ to consider relevant evidence in determining whether a claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Valladares v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-14(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ is obligated to consider the relevant evidence to determine whether a claimant’s impairment(s) meet or equal one of the specified impairments set forth in the listings.

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

Gilbert v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-16(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).

At step three, the disability evaluation asks whether the claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment; if they do, the claimant is disabled.

Lybarger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-17(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if his or her impairments meet or equal one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... In sum, Lybarger hasn’t shown that the ALJ’s step three evaluation violated Social Security procedural requirements or ran afoul of binding case law.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires an ALJ at step three to determine whether a claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; a cursory step-three analysis does not require remand when the decision otherwise fully assesses the claimant's limitations and substantial evidence supports the conclusion.

Pippel v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-23(a)(4)

At step 3, an ALJ evaluates whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal any of the listings found in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... When discussing listing 11.09, the ALJ did not explain why Plaintiff’s multiple sclerosis did not meet or equal either the A or B criteria. The Court finds that the ALJ’s brief discussion of listing 11.09 was perfunctory. However, “an ALJ’s step three analysis, even if cursory, does not warrant remand if the ALJ’s decision otherwise fulsomely assesses a claimant’s physical and mental limitations.” ... Therefore, the Court finds that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff did not have a marked limitation in any of the four areas of mental functioning listed in section B of listing 11.09.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires an ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment and satisfies the duration requirement.

Heath v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-26(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must evaluate whether the claimant has “an impairment(s) that meets or equals one of [the] listings in appendix 1” and “meets the duration requirement.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled at Step Three when the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, without requiring a determination of the claimant’s ability to perform past or other work.

Jacobs v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-28(d)

That is, if an adult is not actually working and her impairment matches or is equivalent to a listed impairment, she is presumed unable to work and is awarded benefits without a determination whether she actually can perform her own prior work or other work. ... An impairment is “medically equivalent” to a Listing if the medical findings are at least equal in severity and duration to the listed criteria. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926. ... The ALJ explained how he considered whether Ms. Jacobs’ obesity met or medically equaled a Listing. He did not err.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment and explain that determination sufficiently for meaningful judicial review.

CAMARGO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-05-13(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether any of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, or the combination thereof, meets or medically equals the severity of one of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... Although an ALJ is not required to use “particular language” when determining whether a claimant meets or equals a listing, the ALJ’s discussion must provide for “meaningful review.” Jones, 364 F.3d at 505 (citing Burnett, 220 F.3d at 120). Accordingly, if 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,” “[t]his discussion satisfies Burnett’s requirement that there be sufficient explanation to provide meaningful review of the step three determination.”

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) makes disability at Step Three turn on whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and section 404.1520(d) places the burden of proving that on the claimant.

Willis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-23(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At Step Three of the disability evaluation, a claimant is disabled if her impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... The claimant bears the burden to prove that her condition meets or equals a listing. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); Peterson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 552 F. App’x 533, 539 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 354 (6th Cir. 2001)).

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant to be found disabled at step three when an impairment meets or medically equals all criteria of a listed impairment; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to step four.

Durham v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2025-08-28(a)(4)(iii), (d)-(e)

If a claimant meets or medically equals all of the criteria for a listed impairment, she is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to step four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)-(e); see also Rabbers, 582 F.3d at 653 (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”). ... Because the evidence does not raise a substantial question as to whether Plaintiff meets or equals the listing, the ALJ’s statement about the listing at Step Three is sufficient and the decision at Step Three is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the disability evaluator at step three to determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

VARGAS · filed 2025-10-29(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ must consider whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or medically equals the severity of any impairment in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... The Court concludes that the matter must be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration of Listing 11.02B. The ALJ’s step three analysis did not adequately address the requirements of Listing 11.02B because the ALJ failed to address, inter alia, the frequency and duration of Plaintiff’s migraine headaches (i.e., one or more headaches a week over a period of multiple years).

Section 404.1520 presumes a claimant disabled at step three when the claimant meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Chambers · filed 2025-11-06(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three of the sequential analysis, if a claimant meets or medically equals a listed impairment, then they are presumed disabled regardless of their age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d).

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

Fisher · filed 2025-11-12(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant is found disabled at step three if they have “an impairment(s) that meets or equals” a listing. 20 C.F.R.§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520(d) requires step three to determine whether a claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if it does, the claimant is presumptively disabled, and the analysis must apply the appropriate criteria to the claimant's condition.

O'Malley · filed 2025-12-05(d)

To summarize, step three—sometimes called a “presumptive” or “per se” disability analysis—asks whether the claimant has an impairment “that meets or equals an impairment found on the Listing of Impairments.” Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)). ... Here, the ALJ correctly recognized at step three that he was required to “consider listing 11.02 in conjunction with SSR 19–4p” to evaluate Carolyn’s migraines. ... That was error. ... Because the ALJ found that one of Carolyn’s severe impairments was her migraine disorder, he was required to analyze her symptoms under SSR 19-4p. He did not do so.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) provides that a claimant is disabled at Step Three when a severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Taffi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-12-19(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three, a claimant is disabled if his impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) provides that a claimant is disabled at step three when an impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Cline · filed 2026-01-21(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if his impairment(s) meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. Dunlap v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:21-CV-136, 2022 WL 1462011, at *12 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 2022), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Dunlap v. Kijakazi, No. 5:21-CV-00136, 2022 WL 1025697 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 6, 2022), citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... The undersigned finds the ALJ considered the combination of Cline’s obesity and diabetes. There is no error.

At Step Three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) makes a claimant disabled when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and the claimant bears the burden of proving that it does.

Oliver · filed 2026-01-28(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At Step Three of the disability evaluation, a claimant is disabled if their impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... The claimant bears the burden to prove that their condition meets or equals a listing. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); Peterson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 552 F. App’x 533, 539 (6th Cir. 2014), citing Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 354 (6th Cir. 2001).

At Step Three, meeting all of the criteria of a listed impairment establishes disability; otherwise, the sequential evaluation proceeds to Step Four.

Walker · filed 2026-01-30(d)-(e)

If an applicant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, she is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers, 582 F.3d at 653 (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”) (emphasis added).

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires an ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s combination of medically determinable impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment; an impairment meets a listing only if it satisfies all specified medical criteria.

GABERY · filed 2026-02-09(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or medically equals the severity of any 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.’” Jones, 364 F.3d at 504 (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990)) (emphasis in original).

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment, and a claimant who does is disabled without further analysis.

Ortiz · filed 2026-02-25(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three of the evaluation process, the ALJ evaluates whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or equal a listed impairment in appendix 1 and meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... If the claimant has an impairment that meets or medically equals the criteria of a listed impairment, the claimant will be found disabled at Step Three. Id. § 404.1520(d). ... The ALJ did not support or otherwise explain the conclusion that “there is no evidence that [Ms. Ortiz] suffers from migraines with the requisite frequency or that they have altered awareness or caused loss of consciousness meeting the listing” at Step Three or elsewhere in the decision. See SSR 17-2p. A court cannot uphold a decision, even if supported by substantial evidence, if “the reasons given by the trier of fact do not build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result.” Fleischer, 774 F.Supp.2d at 877. Without the ALJ’s explanation for rejecting evidence probative of whether Ms. Ortiz’s migraines medically equaled 11.02B, the basis for the ALJ’s finding about medical equivalence at Step Three is indeterminable. ... This error was not harmless. A claimant who meets or medically equals a listed impairment is disabled within the meaning of the regulations and entitled to benefits without further analysis. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

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

Snay · filed 2026-03-17(d)

A claimant’s impairment must meet every element of a Listing before the Commissioner may conclude that he is disabled at Step Three of the sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 855 (6th Cir. 1986).

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment and to find the claimant disabled if they do.

Reynolds · filed 2026-02-25(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether the medical severity of a claimant’s impairment(s) meets or equals a Listing, and if so, the ALJ will find the claimant disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

A claimant whose severe impairment meets a listed impairment is considered disabled under § 404.1520(d).

Tenney v. Bowen · filed 1988-03-03(d)

I believe that plaintiff has amply supported a finding that he suffers from a severe impairment which meets the Listing under 20 C.F.R. Ch. III, Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, 12.04. The Secretary’s determination that plaintiff’s condition does not meet the Listings is clearly not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, he is to be considered disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) requires a disability finding when a claimant meets a listed impairment, without considering whether the claimant can perform other work.

Sird v. Chater · filed 1997-01-27(d)

If the defendant has, as in this case, a conceded mental impairment, and in addition has a significant work-related physical impairment of function, then whether the claimant can perform other gainful activity is not relevant.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant's impairment to meet or equal a listed impairment for disability to be mandated at that step.

Albert T. BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1986-07-30(d)

In order for the plaintiff to have met the above listings, the AU would have had to credit all of plaintiff’s subjective testimony and further credit only such medical testimony as is supportive of plaintiff’s contentions. This the AU is not required to do. Within the record was substantial evidence indicating plaintiff did'not meet the listings.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and satisfies the duration requirement.

Benevento v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-27(d)

When a claimant’s physical impairments meet or equal any disorder in the Listing of Impairments, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is disabled.

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

Barron v. Saul · filed 2020-02-12(d)

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has not met her burden to show that her alleged diabetic neuropathy and peripheral neuropathy meet or equal a listing.

At step three, an impairment that meets or medically equals a listing establishes disability, making other evidence about treatment irrelevant to that determination.

Lankton v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-17(d)

The other evidence cited by Defendant is not relevant at step three because if a claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listing, that fact alone establishes that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) and (d) require an ALJ to find a claimant disabled at Step Three when the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, without considering age, education, or work experience.

Rushing v. SSA · filed 2023-06-01(a)(4)(iii), (d)

As described above, at Step Three of the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ must determine whether Rushing possesses an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or medically equal the severity of any of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. If Rushing has “an impairment(s) that meets or equals one of [the SSA] listings” the ALJ is required to find that he is disabled, “without considering [his] age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d). In other words, the inquiry ends there and the ALJ must find that Rushing is disabled.

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

Muhammad v. Saul · filed 2022-01-07(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. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. I.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires an ALJ to consider severe impairments identified at step two throughout the remaining steps of the five-step disability evaluation.

Gonzalez v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-17(a)(4)

An ALJ’s failure to recognize a severe impairment at step two may affect the remainder of the ALJ’s analysis because the Social Security regulations require the ALJ to consider any severe impairments found at step two throughout the remainder of the five-step evaluation process. See 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to use a five-step sequential process to determine disability, including assessing substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, residual functional capacity and past relevant work, with the burden at the final step shifting to the Commissioner.

Bolden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-09-28(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, there is a five-step process by which the ALJ determines disability under the Act. If at any step the ALJ finds that the claimant is either disabled or not, the inquiry ends. At the first step, the claimant is not disabled if he or she is working and performing “substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment,” without reference to age, education, or work experience. Impairments are “severe” when they significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental “ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... At the third step, the ALJ will find the claimant disabled if his or her impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the ALJ makes a finding about the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” in steps four and five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). In the fourth step, the claimant is not disabled if he or she is able to perform “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). Finally, in the fifth step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant could adjust to other work existing in the national economy, considering factors such as age, education, and work experience; if so, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). The burden of showing that the claimant could perform other work in this final step shifts to the Commissioner.

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

Early v. Astrue · filed 2007-02-27(a)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, Social Security regulations outline a five-step sequential process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f). The Commissioner must determine in sequence: ... (1) whether the claimant is currently employed; ... (2) whether she has a severe impairment; ... (3) whether her impairment meets or equals one listed by the Secretary; ... (4) whether the claimant can perform her past work; and ... (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing any work in the national economy. ... Therefore, the Commissioner failed to carry her burden at step five of the sequential analysis and the plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine disability through the standard five-step sequential evaluation, without first excluding effects attributable to substance use disorders.

Mathious v. Barnhart · filed 2007-04-23

The ALJ must first reach the determination regarding the claimant’s disability using the standard five-step approach described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 ... without segregating out any effects that might be due to substance use disorders.

Section 404.1520(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, including a finding of disability when a listed impairment is present and a burden shift to the Commissioner when the claimant cannot perform past work.

Stricklin v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-25(a)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, Social Security regulations outline a five-step sequential process. ... Once the claimant has satisfied Steps One and Two, she will automatically be found disabled if she suffers from a listed impairment. If the claimant does not have a listed impairment but cannot perform her past work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show that the claimant can perform some other job.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step process for evaluating disability claims, including assessing severity, comparing impairments with listed impairments, determining residual functional capacity and past work, and proceeding to other work when necessary.

Baty v. Barnhart · filed 2007-06-13

The Social Security Administration has developed a five-step process to evaluate disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The first step is to determine whether the claimant is currently employed in substantial gainful activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled. The second step is to determine whether, the claimant’s impairment is severe. Only a severe impairment allows for advancement to step three. During step three, the severe impairment is compared with a list of specific impairments. If the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments, the plaintiff is disabled. Otherwise, the analysis must progress to step four, at which point the Commissioner determines whether, in light of the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC), the impairment precludes a claimant from returning to her past relevant work.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that a claimant unable to return to past work can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers, considering residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Palomino v. Barnhart · filed 2007-06-26(g)

The Social Security Administration has developed a five-step process to evaluate disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... If it is determined that the claimant cannot return to his past relevant work, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner during step five to show that the impairment does not prevent the claimant from performing other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, considering residual capacities, age, education, and work experience. ... If the Commissioner carries this burden, the burden shifts back to the claimant to prove that he is unable to perform the alternative work. ... The ALJ appropriately applied the five-step process, which is the proper legal standard, and assessed Plaintiffs impairments in light of the applicable standard for disability, as defined by the Social Security Act.

Section 404.1520 requires an administrative law judge to use a five-step sequential test to determine whether a claimant is entitled to disability benefits.

Rios v. Barnhart · filed 2006-12-27

To determine whether a claimant is entitled to disability benefits under the Social Security Act, an ALJ must apply a five-step sequential test.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation: work activity and severity are considered first, a listed impairment can establish disability, past work can establish nondisability, and inability to do past work triggers consideration of vocational factors.

Collins v. Astrue · filed 2007-04-16(b)-(f)

An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful activity will not be found disabled regardless of the medical findings. ... An individual who does not have a “severe impairment” will not be found to be disabled. ... An individual who “meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix I” of the regulations will be considered disabled without consideration of vocational factors. ... If an individual is capable of performing the work he has done in the past, a finding of “not disabled” must be made. ... If an individual’s impairment precludes performance of his past work, then other factors, including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if any work can be performed.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine disability through a sequential five-step analysis.

Furniss v. Astrue · filed 2007-03-30

In determining whether a person is disabled, the Regulations require the A.L.J. to perform a sequential five-step analysis.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be decided through a five-step sequence, ending with evaluation of past work and, if necessary, other work in the national economy.

Holiday v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-29(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

An ALJ must engage in a five-step sequential inquiry to determine whether the claimant is capable of performing “substantial gainful activity,” or is, in fact, disabled: ... 1. An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful activity will not be found disabled regardless of the medical findings. ... 2. An individual who does not have a “severe impairment” will not be found to be disabled. ... 3. An individual who “meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1” of the regulations will be considered disabled without consideration of vocational factors. ... 4. If an individual is capable of performing the work she has done in the past, a finding of “not disabled” must be made. ... 5. If an individual’s impairment precludes performance of her past work, then other factors, including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if any work can be performed. ... The claimant has the burden to prove disability under the first four steps. ... A finding that a claimant is disabled or is not disabled at any point in the five-step review is conclusive and terminates the analysis.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for determining disability: evaluating current work activity, impairment severity, listed impairments, residual functional capacity and past work, and the ability to adjust to other work.

Arnold, Steven v. Barnhart, Jo Anne · filed 2007-01-16

In concluding that Arnold was not under a disability prior to that time, the ALJ followed the familiar five-step inquiry. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. In the first step the ALJ considers the applicant’s present work activity. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(I). Second, the ALJ weighs the severity of the applicant’s impairment. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). The impairment or combination of impairments must significantly restrict an applicant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities or an ALJ should enter a finding of not disabled. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(c). Third, the ALJ decides whether the impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an impairment listed within the regulations which are conclusively disabling. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If an ALJ is unable to make a disability determination in the first three steps, then the process proceeds to an assessment of the applicant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(e). At the fourth step, the ALJ determines whether the RFC prevents the applicant from performing his or her past relevant work. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If not, in the fifth and final step the ALJ uses the assessment of RFC to determine if the applicant can make an adjustment to other work based on the applicant’s age, education, and work experience. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). In the last step, the burden is on the Commissioner to demonstrate that the applicant is capable of performing other work “in the national economy.”

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated in five sequential steps, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner bearing it at step five.

George v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-31(b), (c), (d), (e), (f)

An ALJ must engage in a five-step sequential inquiry to determine whether the claimant is capable of performing “substantial gainful activity,” or is, in fact, disabled: ... 1. An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful activity will not be found disabled regardless of the medical findings. ... 2. An individual who does not have a “severe impairment” will not be found to be disabled. ... 3. An individual who “meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1” of the regulations will be considered disabled without consideration of vocational factors. ... 4. If an individual is capable of performing the work she has done in the past, a finding of “not disabled” must be made. ... 5. If an individual’s impairment precludes performance of her past work, then other factors, including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if any work can be performed. ... The claimant has the burden to prove disability under the first four steps. ... If the claimant successfully carries this burden, the burden shifts to the Commissioner in step five to show that other substantial gainful employment is available in the national economy, which the claimant is capable of performing. ... A finding that a claimant is disabled or is not disabled at any point in the five-step review is conclusive and terminates the analysis.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining disability.

Coggon v. Barnhart · filed 2005-02-03

The Social Security Administration has promulgated regulations that have reduced this determination of disability to a five-step analysis. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920(a); R. at 23-24. ... Despite Coggon’s claim, the hearing officer properly applied the five step analysis in its decision, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. sections 404.1572 and 416.972.

Section 404.1520(b) makes substantial gainful activity the first step in the sequential evaluation for disability benefits; a claimant engaged in such activity is not found disabled regardless of the medical findings.

Donner v. Barnhart · filed 2002-03-19(b)

A five-step process is utilized by the ALJ to determine whether a claimant qualifies for disability benefits. ... The claimant has the burden of establishing the first four steps of the five-step sequential process by establishing that he has a severe impairment, which prevents him from performing his past relevant work. If, at any step of the analyses, the ALJ finds that the claimant is or is not disabled, the inquiry is terminated. ... In this five-step process, the ALJ must consider: ... 1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, as an individual who is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity will not be found disabled, regardless of the medical findings; ... 2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; ... 3) whether the claimant meets or equals a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, as such an individual will be considered without consideration of vocational factors; ... 4) if an individual is capable of performing the work he or she has done in the past, a finding of not disabled must be made; and, ... 5) if an individual’s impairment precludes him or her from performing his or her past work, other factors, including age, education, past work experience and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if there is any work in the national economy that the individual can perform.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability determination: current work, severe impairment, listed impairment, ability to perform past work, and ability to perform other work.

Schaal v. Callahan · filed 1997-09-29(b)-(f)

Determining whether a claimant is disabled requires a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. First, the court must determine whether the claimant is currently working. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1510(b), 404.1572(b). If the claimant is currently employed, the claim is disallowed. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If the claimant is not working, as a second step, the agency must make a finding as to the existence of a severe mental or physical impairment; if none exists, the claim is denied. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Once the claimant is found to have a severe impairment, the third step is to compare the claimant’s impairment with those in appendix I of the regulations (the “Listings”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); ... If the claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal one of the listed impairments, as a fourth step, he will have to show that he cannot perform his former work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If the claimant cannot perform his former work, he must show, as a fifth and final step, that he is prevented from doing any other work. A claimant is entitled to receive disability benefits only if he cannot perform any alternate gainful employment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(a) permits the ALJ to stop the sequential evaluation once the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at a step.

Meyer v. Callahan · filed 1997-09-30(a)

After concluding that plaintiff did not have a severe impairment or an impairment listed in the regulations, the ALJ is not required to consider the next step of the sequential analysis. If the plaintiff is found disabled or not disabled during any step in the sequential process, the ALJ need not proceed further.

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to determine whether the claimant can perform other substantial gainful work when the claimant cannot return to past employment.

Davis v. Heckler · filed 1983-06-24(f)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f) (1982) a sequential step process is considered; a finding of no disability at any one of these sequential steps, dictates an end to the inquiry. ... Lastly, if there 'exists an inability to return to past employment or a less demanding occupation, one’s “residual functional capacity[,] ... age, education, and past work experience” are evaluated to determine, by an individual assessment of each of the claimant’s job qualifications (abilities and limitations) measured against each of those factors, whether he is able to engage in other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.-1520(f). ... The matter cannot end here however, since there must be a remand to determine if Davis retains the capacity to engage in any other substantial gainful activity.

Section 404.1520(a) requires the sequential evaluation to assess whether an impairment is severe after substantial gainful activity is considered, and requires severity and the duration requirement before disability can be found.

Pare v. Heckler · filed 1983-10-27(a)

In the sequential process of evaluating disability claims, after the AU has determined that a claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity, he must determine whether claimant’s impairments are severe. An impairment must be severe and meet the duration requirement before a finding of disability can be made. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant to show an impairment meeting or equaling Appendix 1 criteria or inability to perform past relevant work; satisfying either test shifts the burden to the Secretary to show the claimant can do other work considering residual capacities and vocational abilities.

Davis v. Heckler · filed 1983-12-09

Plaintiff has the burden of proving disability to the satisfaction of the Secretary. He must show either that he has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets or equals the medical criteria of Appendix 1, 20 CFR pt. 404 or that the impairment was such as to prevent him from performing his past relevant work. 20 CFR § 404.1520 (1983); Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260 (4th Cir.1981). By satisfying either test, the claimant establishes a prima facie ease of disability. The burden then shifts to the Secretary to show that the claimant is able to perform other work considering both his remaining physical and mental capacities and his vocational abilities to adjust to a new job. Id.

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to follow the sequential evaluation process and make an individualized residual-functional-capacity determination before deciding whether a claimant can perform past or other work.

City of New York v. Heckler · filed 1984-01-11(e) (f)

The Secretary’s practices have violated the requirements of her own regulations. Defendants have ignored the five step sequential evaluation process by presuming that the failure to meet listings at step three or four of the process automatically translates into a residual functional capacity to do unskilled work at steps four and five.

Section 404.1520 makes a severe impairment a prerequisite to disability benefits within the sequential evaluation process.

Jackson v. Heckler · filed 1984-02-06

The Act, as it pertains to disability benefits, requires that a disability be severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, 416.920. ... We cannot say that such a conclusion by the Secretary, as incorporated in the regulations and SSR 82-55 is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. Thus, the Secretary’s denial of claimant’s disability claim is affirmed on this ground as well.

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to use the sequential evaluation process; for widow claims, the first three steps apply, while the regulation’s treatment of residual functional capacity and the remaining steps is limited or unresolved.

Ethel TOLANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, De · filed 1985-03-04

The basic procedure for determining disability under the Act is set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. That section provides that the Secretary shall follow what has come to be called the “sequential evaluation process.” The use of this procedure is not discretionary; it is a regulatory requirement. ... At least the first three of the sequential steps of section 404.1520 appear to apply fully to widows. ... Furthermore, because section 404.1577 explicitly precludes consideration of the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, there is no doubt that the fifth step of the basic sequential procedure is not applicable to widows to the extent that it requires consideration of these factors.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially: first for a listed impairment, then for the ability to perform past work, and finally for the ability to perform other work available in the national economy.

Crosby v. Heckler · filed 1985-04-12

On remand, the ALJ should follow the sequential analysis outlined at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. He should consider whether plaintiff’s motor/neurological difficulty is a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. § 404, Appendix I, § 111.06 (“motor dysfunction [due to any neurological disorder]”); if not, whether plaintiff is capable of performing his past work; and if not, whether he has the residual functional capacity to do other work, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545-404.1569.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for deciding whether a claimant is disabled, including consideration of residual functional capacity and other factors at the final step.

Joseph ODLE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1985-12-17

The Social Security Administration has promulgated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1985), which establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating claims for social security disability insurance benefits. Under the first step, the Secretary determines whether a claimant currently engages in substantial gainful activity. If so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Second, the Secretary examines the severity of the claimant’s impairment or impairments. If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or impairments, the claimant cannot qualify as disabled. Third, the Secretary compares the claimant’s impairment or impairments to the “Listing of Impairments” in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The Secretary will find the claimant disabled if Appendix 1 lists the claimant’s impairment or impairments or if the claimant’s impairment or impairments qualify as the medical equivalent of a listed impairment. Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment or impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment, the Secretary next determines whether the claimant can perform the claimant’s past work. If so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Finally, if the claimant cannot perform past work, the Secretary considers the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the transferability of any skills the claimant may possess to determine whether the claimant qualifies as disabled.

Section 404.1520 sets out a five-step sequential evaluation process, and when a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the Secretary must proceed to the fifth step and obtain vocational evidence about other work.

Brungard v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1985-12-26

Thus, the Secretary must reach the 5th step of the sequential evaluative process set out in the Secretary’s own regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The services of a vocational expert must be enlisted to determine whether significant work exists in the national economy which a man with Plaintiff’s limitations can be expected to perform.

Section 404.1520's sequential evaluation permits consideration of past relevant work at step four when the claimant's ability to work is fully considered despite an adverse step-two severe-impairment finding.

Ervin E. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1986-11-14(c), (e)

No remand is required in this case because the AU’s finding that Taylor did not have a severe impairment did not preclude the thorough consideration of his claim. The AU in fact went on to step 4, § 404.1520(e), and determined that Taylor retained the capacity to return to his past relevant work.

Section 404.1520(a) requires the Secretary to stop the five-step disability evaluation once a claimant is found not disabled at any step, without considering the remaining steps.

Antonio FRAGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-01-16(a)

If a claimant is found not to be disabled at any step in the process, the remaining steps are not considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520 establishes the five-step sequential evaluation process used to determine whether a person is disabled, and the court held that the claim had to proceed beyond step two when basic work activities were significantly limited.

Funderburg v. Bowen · filed 1987-08-11

The Secretary has established a five step sequential evaluation process the ALJ is to follow when determining whether a person is disabled. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1986). ... These statements and findings indicate that the AU is misapplying the second step of the five step evaluation. ... Because the record shows that basic work activities were limited it is necessary to go on to step three of the evaluation process, which requires that the Secretary determine whether plaintiffs impairments meet or equal one of the listed impairments at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P. App. 1.

At the first step, a claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity is not found disabled regardless of the claimant's medical condition at that time.

Downie v. Heckler · filed 1986-02-27(b)

The first question the evaluator asks is whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, that is, whether he is gainfully employed. ... If he is, then he will not be found disabled regardless of his medical condition at the time. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b).

Section 404.1520 treats a person who is doing substantial gainful activity as not disabled, regardless of the person's medical condition or other vocational factors.

Seibel v. Liberty Homes, Inc. · filed 1987-05-06(a)-(b)

The only way that plaintiff could have been found disabled while he was employed by defendant would have been if his employment had not constituted “substantial gainful activity.”

At the first step of the disability evaluation, a claimant who is working and performing substantial gainful activity is deemed not disabled regardless of medical findings.

Hoffman v. Bowen · filed 1987-08-13(b)

The first step provides that an individual will be deemed not disabled, regardless of medical findings, if he is working and the work constitutes substantial gainful activity.

Section 404.1520(a) requires the disability determination process to consider all material facts relevant to whether a claimant is disabled.

State of NY v. Bowen · filed 1987-01-12(a)

The Secretary’s regulation implementing the disability determination sequence opens with a like commitment to consideration of relevant evidence: “We consider all material facts to determine whether you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a) (1986).

Section 404.1520 formerly included a fifth criterion concerning the subjective severity of an impairment, but that criterion was stricken as inconsistent with the Social Security Act.

Hanusiewicz v. Bowen · filed 1988-01-29

Although the applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, includes a fifth criterion related to a subjective measure of the severity of the impairment, this criterion has been stricken from the regulation as inconsistent with the Act.

The steps in the disability evaluation are applied sequentially, and once a claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any step, the remaining steps are not used.

DeRobertis v. Bowen · filed 1989-06-27(a)

The steps are applied sequentially; however, if a finding of "disabled” or "not disabled” is made at any step, the remaining steps are not employed.

Section 404.1520 sets out the five-step disability-evaluation criteria and places on the Secretary the burden of showing that the claimant can perform substantial work in the national economy.

Aileen BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellant · filed 1990-01-09

We evaluate Ms. Burton’s claim under the five familiar criteria found in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1989), which in this case impose on the Secretary the burden of showing that there is substantial work in the national economy which the claimant can perform.

Section 404.1520 mandates the sequential evaluation procedure generally, but it is superseded for widow claims by §§ 404.1577 and 404.1578.

Carty v. Sullivan · filed 1990-04-27

While it is true that the use of this procedure is mandated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, this section is captioned “evaluation of disability in general” and is clearly superseded with respect to widows’ claims by §§ 404.1577 and 1578.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, with the Secretary bearing the burden at the final step of showing that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Harris v. Sullivan · filed 1991-08-14

The Secretary has adopted by regulation a five step, sequential evaluation process to determine if the individual is to receive or continue to receive benefits. The AU must determine: (a) whether the person is presently engaged in a substantial gainful activity; (b) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (c) if the claimant does have a severe impairment, whether it meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1; (d) if the impairment does not satisfy one of the criteria, whether the claimant’s impairments prevent him from performing his past relevant work; and (e) if the claimant is incapable of performing past relevant work, whether he can perform any other work which exists in the national economy in light of his residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. While the claimant bears the burden of proof with regard to the first four steps in the analytical framework outlined above, the Secretary has the burden of proving the last step, i.e., that the claimant is capable of performing other work and that such work exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential evaluation process for disability claims and shifts the burden to the Secretary to show available national-economy work after the claimant cannot perform past relevant work.

Bond v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1991-08-23

The regulations promulgated by the Secretary provide a sequential evaluation process for disability determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1989). First, the Secretary must determine whether the claimant is currently engaging in substantial gainful activity. If not, the second inquiry is whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. If the claimant is severely impaired, the Secretary must compare the impairment to the listings. If the listings are not met, the Secretary must determine whether the impairments prevent the performance of the claimant's regular previous employment. If the claimant is unable to perform his or her past relevant work, then a prima facie case of disability is established and the burden of producing evidence shifts to the Secretary to show that there is work in the national economy which the individual can perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Lashley v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 708 F.2d 1048, 1053 (6th Cir.1983). To rebut a prima facie case, the Secretary must produce particularized proof of the claimant's individual capacity to perform alternate work considering the claimant's age, education, and background, as well as the job requirements. Moon, 923 F.2d at 1181.

Section 404.1520(a) requires the disability evaluation to end once a claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any step.

Moore v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-02-18(a)

If a claimant is determined to be disabled or not disabled at any step, the evaluation process ends there. ... In this case, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not eligible for disability benefits at steps four and five, even though a determination of nondisability at either step would have ended the inquiry.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step process for deciding whether a claimant is disabled; the evaluation ends when disability or non-disability is found at any step, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Secretary thereafter.

Bowen v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-09-23

In order to determine whether a claimant is under a disability, the Secretary applies a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir.1988) (providing an in-depth discussion of the five steps). If a claimant is determined to be disabled or not disabled at any step, the evaluation process ends there. Sorenson v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 706, 710 (10th Cir.1989). The burden of proof is on the claimant through step four; then it shifts to the Secretary. Id.

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

Morales v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-09-29(a)

The ALJ correctly followed the sequential steps set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. He first found that the claimant had not worked since September, 1981. Second, he determined that the combined effect of claimant's mental and physical impairments amounted to a severe impairment. The ALJ next concluded that claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals the impairments listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P of the Social Security Regulations. Fourth, he found that claimant's impairments prevented her from performing her past relevant work as a cook. Claimant does not dispute any of the above findings. She takes issue, however, with the ALJ's finding at step five of the sequence, that her impairments do not prevent her from performing any other work in the national economy.

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

Davis v. Shalala · filed 1994-02-16(b)-(f)

Pursuant to the Statutory provisions, the Secretary has promulgated regulations which establish a five-step sequential process for determining the presence or absence of disability to award or to deny disability payments, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1984). All of the various regulatory definitions, etc., appear in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1501, Sub-part P, et seq. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the first four sequential steps in the test for disability. Then on the final step, if it is reached, the Secretary bears the burden of proof.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment, while § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) places on the claimant the burden at step four to show that she cannot perform her past relevant work.

Gray v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-31(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iv)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is “severe,” meaning an impairment that significantly limits an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant has any severe impairment, the ALJ proceeds to the next step of the sequential evaluation. Id. ... At step four of the sequential evaluation, the claimant bears the burden of proving that she cannot return to her past relevant work. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146, n.5 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can perform any of her past relevant work, either as she actually performed it or as it is generally performed in the national economy, the ALJ must find her “not disabled.”

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential process, with further inquiry unnecessary if disability is established at an earlier step and benefits available only if the claimant cannot perform other work.

Moon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-09(a), (g)

The Social Security Administration, in order to regularize the adjudicative process, promulgated the detailed regulations currently in effect. These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential process, including whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.

McDonald v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-17(a), (g)

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). ... If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

Section 404.1520's sequential evaluation treats meeting or medically equaling a listing as disability at step three and asks at step four whether the claimant can return to past relevant work.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(a)(4)(iii), (f)

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). ... In regard to the last finding, the relevant inquiry is whether the claimant can return to his past type of work rather than just his past job. Studaway v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 815 F.2d 1074, 1076 (6th Cir. 1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(a) requires the Social Security Administration to follow the five-step sequential evaluation in order and stop once it determines that a claimant is disabled or not disabled at a step.

Acevedo v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-24(a)

The Plaintiff’s second argument is a Step Five argument, and accordingly it need only be reached if her claim passes Step Four. “The sequential evaluation process is a series of five ‘steps’ that [the SSA] follow[s] in a set order.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). If the agency determines that a claimant is “disabled or not disabled at a step,” it makes its “determination or decision” at that step and does “not go on to the next step.” Id. ... In this case, substantial evidence supported stopping at Step Four. ... Because it was proper to stop at Step Four under the facts of this case, the Court does not reach the Plaintiff’s Step Five arguments.

Section 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ at Step Four to determine residual functional capacity after considering all medical and other evidence, including the claimant's symptoms.

Miley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-22(e)

At Step Four of the sequential analysis laid out in the regulations, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC after considering all the medical and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... The ALJ complied with the regulations by: (1) expressly considering all of Miley’s symptoms in light of the medical evidence, other evidence, and Miley’s statements regarding her symptoms; and (2) clearly explaining that she rejected Miley’s subjective symptom complaints because her statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not consistent with the objective evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, at *9-10; (Tr. 20-24).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential disability evaluation, and failure to identify an additional severe impairment at step two is harmless when the impairment's effects are considered at later steps.

Warren v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-10(a)(4)

Regarding Plaintiff’s first argument, the Undersigned finds that Plaintiff is mistaken that the ALJ’s failure to recognize Plaintiff’s neuropathy/radiculopathy as medically determinable impairments at step two of the evaluation process constitutes reversible error. As the Sixth Circuit and this Court have observed several times, step two of the evaluation process is merely meant to “screen out totally groundless claims,” and it is well settled that where an ALJ “considers all of a claimant’s impairments in the remaining steps of the disability determination, any perceived failure to find additional severe impairments at step two ‘[does] not constitute reversible error.’”

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine disability through a sequential evaluation process, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and, if not, other work in the national economy.

Albert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-28

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to use a five-step sequential evaluation of disability, including assessing work activity, severity, listed impairments, residual functional capacity and past work, and other work in the national economy.

Adames v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29

Under that standard, the ALJ is required to perform a five-step inquiry. ... Then, at step four, the ALJ then considers whether, in light of the RFC determination, the claimant could perform “past relevant work,” if the claimant has worked in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). Finally, at step five, the ALJ evaluates whether the claimant could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. § 404.1520(g). ... The ALJ’s decision followed the appropriate legal standards and was predicated on substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims, with past relevant work considered at step four and adjustment to other work at step five.

ANDINO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-18(a)(4)

As explained in the following agency regulation, each case is evaluated by the Commissioner according to a five-step process: ... (iv) At the fourth step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your past relevant work. If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled. (v) At the fifth and last step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your age, education, and work experience to see if you can make an adjustment to other work. If you can make the adjustment to other work, we will find that you are not disabled. If you cannot make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are disabled. ... It is largely irrelevant whether SSR 20-01p applies here. The ALJ in this case found at the fourth stage of the sequential evaluation that Andino could return to her past relevant work as a housekeeper/cleaner. The vocational factors considered only at the fifth stage obviously do not apply to this decision.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential evaluation process requiring the ALJ to determine disability through the listed steps, including whether the claimant can perform past work and, if not, other work in the national economy.

Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-06(a)

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability inquiry that proceeds to later steps unless disability or nondisability is established earlier.

LA ROSA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-07-06(a)(4)

The Social Security Administration follows a five-step, sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled under the SSA. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... The evaluation continues through each step unless it is ascertained at any point the claimant is or is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4); 416.920(a)(4). ... In any event, the ALJ still found in Plaintiff’s favor at step two by determining that Plaintiff had severe impairments for bipolar disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, and appropriately proceeded with Plaintiff’s sequential analysis. Tr. at 15; see Salles v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 229 F. App’x 140, 145 n.2 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that an ALJ’s step two analysis is sufficient where, in finding for Plaintiff, the ALJ determines that at least one of Plaintiff’s impairments is severe).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step evaluation process for determining disability, including consideration of impairment severity at step two.

Lee v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-14

When deciding whether an individual has a disability, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) uses a five-step evaluation process. , 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The second step requires consideration of the medical severity of the impairments.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through the sequential process, including determining at Step Three whether the claimant meets a listed impairment and proceeding to Step Four if not.

Craddock v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-03(a)(4)(iii), (d)-(e)

At Step Three of the sequential evaluation process, a claimant has the burden to show that he has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. ... If the claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, he is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers v. Comm’r of SSA, 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2009) (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”)

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, with the review ending when disability or nondisability is found at any step.

Scudder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-22

The Commissioner has established a five-step evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... If at any step a finding of disability or non-disability can be made, the SSA will not review the claim further.

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

Paitsel v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-23(a)

In determining whether a person is disabled, the Commissioner is required to perform a five-step sequential analysis. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a); Hess v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 931 F.3d 198, 201 (3d Cir. 2019).

At step five, the regulation requires the Commissioner to show that a claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, otherwise the claimant is disabled.

Gates v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-13(a)(4)(v)

The initial burden of proof rests upon the claimant to meet the first four steps. If the claimant satisfies his burden with respect to the first four steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner for step five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant is capable of making an adjustment to other work after considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC), age, education, and work experience. Id. If the Commissioner fails to meet this burden, then the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v); 416.920(a)(4)(v). If, however, the Commissioner proves that the claimant is able to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) directs the decision maker to stop the sequential disability evaluation once it can find the claimant disabled or not disabled at a step.

Brewington v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-14(a)(4)

Indeed, the very fact that the ALJ progressed in the sequential process appears to be an implicit finding that the ALJ found step 1 to be inconclusive regarding disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (“If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at a step, we make our determination or decision and we do not go on to the next step.”).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step process for determining disability, including consideration at step three of whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, which results in disability without further inquiry.

Wilhelm v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-26(a)(4)(iii)

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. ... If a condition meets or equals a Listing, the claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires an ALJ to follow the sequential evaluation process and assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity before deciding whether the claimant can perform work.

HOLT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-11-18(a)(4)

Here, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred because she failed to follow the sequential evaluation process required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). (ECF 10 at 22). This argument is made in a conclusory manner making it difficult for the Court to parse out exactly where Plaintiff believes the ALJ ran afoul the sequential evaluation process, but it appears she is contending that the ALJ assumed that Plaintiff could work prior to evaluating her limitations. (Id.) This is not the case. There is nothing in the ALJ’s decision that suggests that she determined that Plaintiff could work prior to conducting a proper RFC analysis. (R. at 164-170). The ALJ only discussed Plaintiff’s capacity to perform work after the RFC analysis was complete. (R. at 170-72).

Section 404.1520 requires disability to be evaluated through a sequential process that considers, among other things, whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or other work in the national economy.

Vaccarino v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-21(a)(4)

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy considering residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

McCuistion v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-27

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 404.1520. Step one determines if he is engaged in substantial gainful activities. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activities, benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(i), 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activities, the decision maker proceeds to step two and determines whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the disability claim is denied. If the impairment is severe, the evaluation proceeds to the third step, which compares the claimant’s impairment with listed impairments acknowledged by the Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude any gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. If the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled. If the impairment is not one conclusively presumed to be disabling, the evaluation proceeds to the fourth step, which determines whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing work that he has performed in the past. If the claimant can perform her previous work, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). At this step, the claimant’s RFC assessment is considered. If the claimant cannot perform this work, the fifth and final step in the process determines whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy considering his residual functional capacity and age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(a)(4)(v); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987).

Section 404.1520 places the determination whether a claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a Listing at step three of the sequential evaluation, before the residual functional capacity assessment.

Thompson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-03-27(a)(4)(iii)

In fact, the determination whether a claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal the criteria of a Listing is made at step three of the process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520 requires an impairment found to impose more-than-minimal work-related limitations to be considered beyond step two in the later stages of the sequential evaluation.

CONGLETON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-08-23(c)

At this juncture, the ALJ must explain his consideration of the evidence and consider Plaintiff’s right shoulder impairment beyond step two in light of his finding that Plaintiff’s degenerative joint disease of the right shoulder imposed “more-than-minimal limitations” in her ability to perform basic work-related activities.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires an ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is severe before continuing the sequential evaluation.

Negron v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-12(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the ALJ determines that a claimant does not have an “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [their] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, [the ALJ] will find that [the claimant] does not have a severe impairment and [is], therefore not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If a claimant establishes a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the analysis continues to the third step.

Section 404.1520(a)(4), (c), and (e) requires an ALJ to find a severe impairment at step two before comparing the claimant’s residual functional capacity with past relevant work at step four; inability to perform some basic work activities does not automatically establish inability to perform past relevant work.

Chute v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2023-09-13(a)(4), (c), (e)

Step four’s comparison of the claimant’s RFC to the requirements of her past relevant work necessarily incorporates the step-two determination of severe impairment: an ALJ never reaches step four unless a severe impairment has been found at step two. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), (c), (e). And that Chute cannot do some basic work activities does not mean that her past relevant work involved those activities. So the ALJ’s finding of severe impairment at step two did not require a finding at step four that Chute could not perform her past relevant work.

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant at step two to establish a severe medically determinable impairment, and an impairment is severe only when it significantly limits physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Bearss-Logman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-08(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the claimant has the burden to show that she has a severe medically determinable impairment that can be expected to result in death or last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. Celava v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An ALJ will find that a claimant has a medically determinable impairment only if the record includes “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521, 416.921. Further, an ALJ will find an impairment to be “severe” only if it “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated under a five-step framework, including a step-two assessment of whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits basic work activities.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-25(a)

The Commissioner’s regulations prescribe the following five-step framework for evaluating disability claims. At issue here is step two, pursuant to which the Commissioner “considers whether the Plaintiff has a ‘severe impairment,’ which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” See Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2012) (emphasis added); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a).

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

Gorecki v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-09-26(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At the second step of the evaluation, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or a combination of medical impairments that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c). Absent such impairment, the claimant may not claim disability. Id.

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

Dawson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-13(c)

A “severe” impairment is defined under the regulations as “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... In this case, the ALJ discussed Ms. Dawson’s diabetes and said she had “considered all of [Ms. Dawson’s] medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe, when assessing [her] residual functional capacity.” ... Taken together, the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Ms. Dawson’s diabetes and related symptoms improved with appropriate treatment. (Tr. 18.)

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine disability through an ordered five-step evaluation and stop once a step resolves the claim.

Cordero v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-30

An ALJ must proceed through a five-step process to make a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The steps are followed in order; if it is determined that the claimant is or is not disabled at a step of the evaluation process, the evaluation will not progress to the next step. See id.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process: the claimant bears the burden through the first four steps, and at step five the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work in the national economy considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Acosta v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-28

When considering a disability application, the Commissioner is required to use a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987). At the first four steps of the evaluation process, the claimant must show: (1) the claimant is not engaged in “substantial gainful activity”; (2) the claimant has a “severe medically determinable . . . impairment . . . or a combination of impairments” that has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year; and (3) the impairment(s) either meet or equal one of the Listings3 of presumptively disabling impairments; or (4) the claimant is unable to perform his or her “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i–iv), 416.920(a)(4)(i–iv); Grogan, 399 F.3d at 1260–61. If the claimant cannot show that his or her impairment meets or equals a Listing but proves that he or she is unable to perform his or her “past relevant work,” the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner, at step five, to show that the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), age, education, and work experience. Id.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to decide disability through a five-step sequential process, including determining whether the claimant's impairments meet a listing before evaluating residual functional capacity and past relevant work.

Graham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-13(a)(4)(i)-(v)

The Social Security regulations outline a five-step sequential evaluation process that the ALJ must use in determining whether a claimant is disabled: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) if so, whether that impairment, or combination of impairments, meets or equals any of the listings in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) if not, whether the claimant can perform her past relevant work in light of his RFC; and (5) if not, whether, based on the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, he can perform other work found in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v); Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 642-43 (6th Cir. 2006).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step four to assess whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and, if not, at step five to assess whether the claimant can adjust to work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

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

At step four, the ALJ assesses whether a claimant’s RFC precludes past relevant work. Id. If the claimant can perform past relevant work, she is found not disabled. See id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b). Otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to step five of the sequential evaluation process, which asks whether the claimant can make an adjustment to work which exists in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1560(c). If the claimant can do so, she is found not disabled. Id.

At step four, § 404.1520 requires consideration of a claimant’s residual functional capacity and past relevant work, with a finding of not disabled if the claimant can still perform that work.

Coyle v. SSA · filed 2024-05-22(f)

Indeed, at step four in the sequential evaluation, an ALJ must determine a claimant’s ability to perform past relevant work, if any, considering the specific, proven limitations accounted for in the claimant’s RFC. Griffeth v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 217 F. App’x 425, 427 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)) (“If at step four of the sequential evaluation process the ALJ finds that an individual’s RFC allows him to perform work he has done in the past, a finding of not disabled will be made.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(iv), (f) (“At the fourth step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your past relevant work. . . . Your impairment(s) must prevent you from doing your past relevant work. If we cannot make a determination or decision at the first three steps of the sequential evaluation process, we will compare our residual functional capacity assessment . . . with the physical and mental demands of your past relevant work. . . . If you can still do this kind of work, we will find that you are not disabled.”). And ALJ Lovitt did just that.

At step five, § 404.1520(g) requires consideration of a claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy.

REGAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-06-03(g)

An ALJ must determine whether the claimant, considering her RFC, age, education, and work experience, could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 404.1594(a).

Section 404.1520 provides that once a claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any step of the sequential evaluation, the evaluation need not proceed to later steps.

Morado v. Social Security · filed 2024-06-20

“[i]f a claimant is found to be ‘disabled’ or ‘not-disabled’ at any step in the sequence, there is no need to consider subsequent steps.”

Section 404.1520(a)(4) ends the sequential disability evaluation once the agency determines at a step that the claimant is disabled or not disabled.

Mockler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-30(a)(4)

The Commissioner argues that the Court need not address this argument as the ALJ’s findings at step four are supported by substantial evidence and thus sufficient to support the finding that Plaintiff is not disabled. (Doc. 22, p. 1-2.) I agree. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). (“If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at a step, we make our determination or decision and we do not go on to the next step.”).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) places the severity and twelve-month duration inquiry at step two, after the ALJ establishes a medically determinable impairment.

Bondoc v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-24(a)(4)(ii)

The duration requirement is not taken into consideration until a medically determinable impairment is established. See, e.g., Aida U. v. Kijakazi, No. 20-cv-5669, 2022 WL 4109717, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2022) (“If a claimant establishes that she has one or more physical or mental impairments, the ALJ then determines whether the impairment(s) standing alone, or in combination, are severe and meet the twelve-month durational requirement[.]”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii)).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine disability through a five-step sequential evaluation, including consideration of substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Najdl v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-30(a)(4)(i)-(v), (d)-(e)

Social Security regulations outline a five-step process the ALJ must use to determine whether a claimant is entitled to benefits: 1. whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; 2. if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; 3. if so, whether that impairment, or combination of impairments, meets or equals any of the listings in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; 4. if not, whether the claimant can perform their past relevant work in light of his RFC; and 5. if not, whether, based on the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, they can perform other work found in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v); Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 642-43 (6th Cir. 2006).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation, and if a claimant lacks a severe impairment at step two, the ALJ must find the claimant not disabled without proceeding to later steps.

McFadden v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-10(a)(4)(ii)

In accordance with the regulations, the ALJ ended the evaluation at step two and found Plaintiff not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) (“If [the claimant] does not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement in § 404.1509, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, [the SSA] will find that [the claimant is] not disabled.”).

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

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-18

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

Section 404.1520's sequential evaluation considers age at step five, not at step four.

Burgess v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-16(a)(4)(v)

While it is true that Plaintiff was fifty-five years old at the second hearing, placing her in the “advanced age” category, age is not considered at step four. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) (at step five the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for determining whether a claimant is disabled.

PHILLIPS v. FRANK BISIGNANO · filed 2025-09-15

The Social Security Regulations set out a five-step sequential evaluation process to be used in determining if a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2004).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated in sequence, including whether the claimant has a severe impairment, meets a listed impairment, can perform past relevant work, and can perform other work in the national economy.

Turek v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-26

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to proceed through a sequential evaluation, and a claim is decided at the step on which the denial rests rather than at an earlier step the adjudicator continued past.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-12-23

The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) has promulgated regulations incorporating a five-step sequential evaluation process to guide ALJs in determining whether a claimant is under a disability as defined by the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... Although the ALJ did indeed find that Plaintiff engaged in SGA after March 23, 2022, he did not deny Plaintiff’s claim for benefits on this basis. AR at 19-20. Rather, he proceeded in the sequential analysis and determined that Plaintiff was capable of performing her past relevant work as a folding machine feeder. Id. This case, therefore, was not decided at Step One but at Step Four.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability through a sequential process, including deciding at step two whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment.

Hargis · filed 2026-01-02(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two, the ALJ considers the medical severity of a claimant’s impairment and whether there is a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment – or combination of impairments – that meets Agency duration requirements. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) considers a claimant’s age at step five, after the step-four past-relevant-work inquiry.

Burkhart · filed 2026-01-26(a)(4)(v)

However, age is not a relevant factor until step five, when the Court considers whether a claimant can adjust to other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) (“At the fifth and last step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your age, education, and work experience to see if you can make an adjustment to other work.”).

At step two, § 404.1520 requires a claimant to show a severe impairment or combination of impairments, and the evaluation proceeds to later steps if one exists.

Kirby · filed 2026-03-09(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Step two is a threshold determination of whether claimants have a severe impairment (or combination of impairments) that meets the twelve-month duration requirement and significantly limits their ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the ALJ finds no severe impairments, the claimant is not disabled, and the analysis does not proceed to the other steps. Id. However, if a claimant does have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the ALJ must consider the effects of both the severe and non-severe impairments at the subsequent steps of the process, including the determination of RFC. ... Accordingly, any error the ALJ may have committed at step two concerning assessing the severity of Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and PTSD was not prejudicial as the ALJ discussed it in the following steps.

The sequential evaluation requires consideration of the combined effects of all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity and ability to do other work.

Bowker v. Heckler · filed 1984-11-01(e), (f)

Once the Appeals Council concluded that Plaintiff's impairment did not meet the Listings, it proceeded, as prescribed in the sequential analysis set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, to evaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, id., § 404.1520(e), and his ability to do other work, id., § 404.-1520(f). The Council’s application of the regulations to the facts of this case was erroneous. Although Plaintiff suffers from diabetes and depression, the Appeals Council failed to make findings with respect to the effect of these impairments, in combination with the epilepsy, upon Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1520 directs the ALJ at the final step of the disability evaluation to consider residual functional capacity, age, education, and prior work experience.

Kirk v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1981-12-22

The last step in the sequence is the medical-vocational table challenged here. The ALJ is directed to consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity, that is, the level of work the claimant is able to perform (sedentary, light or medium) and the claimant’s vocational factors — age, education and prior work experience.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through a five-step process, including whether the claimant can perform past work or other work.

Weitzel v. Colvin · filed 2013-08-23

The Commissioner utilizes a five-step process in evaluating disability insurance and supplemental security income claims. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Poulos, 474 F.3d at 91-92. This process requires the Commissioner to consider, in sequence, whether a claimant (1) is engaging in substantial gainful activity, ... (2) has an impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that is severe, ... (3) has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment, ... (4) has the residual functional capacity to return to his or her past work and (5) if not, whether he or she can perform other work in the national economy.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) places the residual functional capacity assessment between steps three and four and applies it at steps four and five.

Valencia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-10-19(a)(4)

The administrative finding of a claimant’s RFC is made between steps 3 and 4 of the sequential analysis and it is applied at steps 4 and 5.