20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

Section 404.1520 requires a mandatory five-step disability analysis, including a step-three determination of whether a severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Bisignano · filed 2026-02-11(d)

The ALJ applies a five-step procedure to decide whether an applicant is disabled. This sequential analysis is mandatory for all SSI and SSD/DIB applications. Smith v. Shalala, 987 F.2d 1371, 1373 (8th Cir. 1993); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... Step Three: Determine whether any of the severe impairments identified in Step Two meets or equals a “Listing” in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Part 404. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If an impairment meets or equals a Listing, the applicant will be considered disabled without further inquiry. ... Because the ALJ omitted any evaluation of Ms. J.’s migraines at step three of the sequential disability analysis, the court directs the ALJ on remand to evaluate Ms. J.’s migraines at step three by evaluating Listing 11.02 in accordance with SSR 19-4p.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ at Step Three to determine whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Besco · filed 2026-02-17

At Step Three of the sequential five-step test to assess disability, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from an impairment which meets or equals any impairment listed in the regulations “as being so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity”. Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 352 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520).

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

Akin v. Saul · filed 2019-10-02(d)

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) makes a claimant disabled at step three when the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

KOCI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-09-26(a)(4)(iii)

If the ALJ on remand finds that Plaintiff has an impairment or combination of impairments that rise to the level of the Commissioner’s listings, Plaintiff will be “deemed disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a); see also Sullivan v, Zebley, 493 U.S, 521, 525 (At step three “[i]f the claimant’s impairment matches or is equal to one of the listed impairments, [plaintiff] qualifies for benefits without further inquiry”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

At step three, the ALJ must assess whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; detailed findings elsewhere in the decision can support that assessment.

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

Thus, if the ALJ fails to make detailed findings at step three, the court will not reverse provided the ALJ adequately discusses the evidence and makes sufficiently detailed findings in other portions of the decision.

Section 404.1520(d) requires an ALJ’s step-three finding about whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment to be supported by substantial evidence.

Wicker v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-14(d)

At step three of the five-step framework, “[i]f a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals a condition outlined in the ‘Listing of Impairments,’ then the claimant is presumed disabled.” Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 512 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)). ... The ALJ’s step-three determination does not appear to be based on substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation, ending the review when disability or nondisability is determined at a step, and requires assessment of residual functional capacity after Step Three and before Step Four.

Walton v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-18(a), (e)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled,- Agency regulations prescribe a five-step sequential evaluation. If a claimant can be found disabled or not disabled at any step of the sequential evaluation, the review ends. ... After Step Three and before determining whether the claimant can perform her past work at Step Four of the Agency’s sequential evaluation, the ALJ is required to assess a claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the disability evaluation to stop once the agency can determine at a step that the claimant is disabled or not disabled.

Gladden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-02-29(a)(4)

Because Gladden did not meet her burden of proof on the fourth step of the analysis, the Court is not required to advance to the fifth step. ... 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 places the residual functional capacity assessment before the step-four and step-five determinations, so those later steps depend on the RFC finding.

Colon v. Saul · filed 2020-05-22(e)

The RFC determination is analytically prior to findings at steps four and five and, in fact, how steps four and five come out depends on the RFC finding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Consideration of how a vocational expert’s testimony coheres with DOT jobs does not require any particular RFC and certainly does not require, from an analytical standpoint, that a hearing officer reconsider her RFC finding. See SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704 (Dec. 4, 2000). The Appeals Council’s direction that the hearing officer consider a step in the sequential evaluation analytically prior to the one the district court identified is therefore beyond the scope of the remand.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as non-severe when it does not significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

ROSSI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-15(c)

As for Plaintiff’s mental impairments, the Court agrees with the ALJ that the record evidence supports the finding that Plaintiff’s depression was not severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (if a mental impairment does not “significantly limit[] your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521 (“An impairment . . . is not severe if it does not significantly limit your . . . mental ability to do basic work activities,” such as “[u]nderstanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions,” “[u]se of judgment,” “[r]esponding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations,” and “[d]ealing with changes in a routine work setting.”).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to evaluate the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments at step two, including whether they are medically determinable.

Miller v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-08-09(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ is required to consider whether Plaintiff’s alleged impairments constitute “medically determinable” impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508; 416.920(a)(4)(ii); 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant’s alleged impairments are medically determinable impairments.

Hockstedler v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-08-17(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ is required to consider whether Plaintiff’s alleged impairments constitute “medically determinable” impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508; 416.920(a)(4)(ii); 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has medically determinable impairments and whether they are severe.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-12(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ is required to consider whether a claimant’s impairments are “medically determinable impairments” and whether such impairments are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

At Step Two, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has medically determinable impairments and whether those impairments are severe.

Janson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-24(a)(4)(ii)

Step Two of the sequential evaluation process requires the ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s impairments are “medically determinable impairments” and whether such impairments are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

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

Schukin v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-17(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, an ALJ must evaluate the entire medical record and determine whether a claimant has any medically determinable impairments, and whether such impairments are “severe,” as defined by the Act. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1521, 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 416.921.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ at step two to determine whether an impairment is medically determinable and, if so, whether it is severe.

Murray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-18(c)

An ALJ must make several determinations at step two. First, an ALJ must consider if a claimant’s impairment constitutes a “medically determinable” impairment, i.e., an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 404.1521. If an impairment is medically determinable, then an ALJ must determine whether it is severe. Id. A “severe impairment” is defined as “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Thus, regardless of whether the ALJ explicitly designated Plaintiff’s shoulder impairment as a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ considered the impairment when assessing the medical evidence and deciding how his impairments impacted his ability to work. And that is all the ALJ is required to do. ... When the RFC analysis considers all a plaintiff’s impairments, a failure to categorize a particular impairment as severe or non-severe (or medically determinable) is harmless.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine at step two whether an impairment is medically determinable and, if so, whether it is severe.

Speakman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-22(c)

An ALJ must make several determinations at step two. First, an ALJ must consider if a claimant’s impairment constitutes a “medically determinable” impairment, i.e., an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 404.1521. If an impairment is medically determinable, then an ALJ must determine whether it is severe. Id. A “severe impairment” is defined as “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ at step two to determine whether an impairment is medically determinable and, if so, whether it is severe based on whether it significantly limits basic work activities.

Cotton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-24(c)

An ALJ must make several determinations at step two. First, an ALJ must consider if a claimant’s impairment constitutes a “medically determinable” impairment, i.e., an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 404.1521. If an impairment is medically determinable, then an ALJ must determine whether it is severe. Id. A “severe impairment” is defined as “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two, the regulation requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant's impairments are medically determinable and whether they are severe.

Tackett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-19(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ is required to consider whether a claimant’s impairments are “medically determinable impairments” and whether such impairments are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ at step two to determine whether alleged impairments are medically determinable before assessing their severity.

Bland v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-14(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two, the ALJ must consider whether plaintiff’s alleged impairments constitute “medically determinable” impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A medically determinable impairment “must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques[,]” and “must be established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. Importantly, “[n]o symptom or combination of symptoms by itself can constitute a medically determinable impairment.” SSR 96-4p, 1996 WL 374187, at *2 (July 2, 1996). See also Griffith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F. App’x 555, 559 (6th Cir. 2014) (“A severe mental impairment is established by medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings, not only by [a plaintiff’s] statement of symptoms.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As the chronic pain alleged by plaintiff is a symptom she consistently reported to Dr. Simpson, the ALJ did not err in failing to determine whether plaintiff’s “chronic pain” was a severe mental impairment. Rather, the ALJ appropriately considered plaintiff’s pain allegations in evaluating her subjective statements about her symptoms, as explained below.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether an impairment is medically determinable and whether it is severe or non-severe.

Haldeman v. Saul · filed 2022-03-17(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether a claimant’s impairment is (1) medically determinable or non-medically determinable, and (2) severe or non-severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). This step is essentially a threshold test. ... However, the ALJ noted in a different section of the decision that “Dr. Slagle also noted that the ‘low back and right hip pain is purely muscular in nature.’” (Admin. Tr. 25). ... Furthermore, Plaintiff has not cited to any evidence that the ALJ’s failure to discuss the hip pain at step two resulted in harm. ... Accordingly, I am not persuaded that remand is required for further consideration of Plaintiff’s hip pain.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires an impairment to be medically determinable, severe, and of sufficient duration or the claimant will be found not disabled.

Broemson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-23(a)(4)(ii)

Still, an impairment must be medically determinable, severe, and of sufficient duration or there will be a finding of non-disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... In short, Plaintiff has not demonstrated, and the Court’s independent review of the record does not show that Plaintiff’s paresthesia lasted for 12 consecutive months. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that it constituted a medically determinable impairment.

At step two, the regulation requires an impairment to be medically determinable, severe, and of sufficient duration.

Spence v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-21(a)(4)(ii)

Still, an impairment must be medically determinable, severe, and of sufficient duration or there will be a finding of non-disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... In short, it is not entirely clear, on this record, that Plaintiff’s headaches lasted for 12 consecutive months given that she regularly denied headaches for months at a time. But even if Plaintiff’s headaches did satisfy the duration requirement, the Court further finds that any error was harmless. ... The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had at least one medically determinable impairment that was severe and continued the sequential evaluation. But Plaintiff does not point to, and it is not apparent from the record, that there are any functional limitations attributable to her headaches that the ALJ failed to consider.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims sequentially, including determining at step two whether an impairment is medically determinable and severe.

Caughron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-22(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, an ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s alleged impairments constitute “medically determinable” impairments—i.e., impairments that result from anatomical, physiological or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 404.1521. ... Still, an impairment must be medically determinable, severe, and of sufficient duration or there will be a finding of non-disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not commit reversible error when determining that Plaintiff’s neurocognitive disorder was not a medically determinable impairment and that he had no functional limits because of it. Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary lacks merit.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has any medically determinable severe impairments.

Mackey v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-31(a)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has any medically determinable severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(ii). ... The ALJ’s determination of Plaintiff’s severe impairments was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence and the Court will not reject the ALJ’s determinations. Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005).

Section 404.1520(c) requires the Commissioner to determine at step two whether an impairment is medically determinable and severe, meaning that it significantly limits the claimant's ability to do basic work activities.

Jackson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-14(c)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has an impairment, or combination of impairments, that is both medically determinable and severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). An impairment is medically determinable if it is diagnosed by an acceptable medical source and based upon acceptable medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). An impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant's ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

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

Dickinson v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-30(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has any severe medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... The Court finds the ALJ erred in concluding Plaintiff’s spinal impairment(s) was not a medically determinable impairment and in failing to consider relevant evidence of other medically determinable impairments at step two or elsewhere in the decision. ... On remand, the ALJ will reconsider whether Plaintiff has a spine impairment and, if so, whether it is severe.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires an ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement.

Sharp v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-09(a)(4)(ii)

The second step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, that is severe and meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... At bottom, in light of (i) Dr. Starr’s report, (ii) the fact that the ALJ found Dr. Starr’s report persuasive, and (iii) the existence of certain medical evidence in the record that points to the presence of possible additional medically determinable impairments, the ALJ’s failure to explain why additional medically determinable impairments were not found at step two was error.

Section 404.1520(c) requires an ALJ at step two to determine whether a claimant's impairments are medically determinable, alone or in combination, and, if so, whether they are severe.

Plesha v. O'Malley · filed 2025-05-02(c)

At step two an ALJ is required to consider whether a claimant’s impairments qualify as “medically determinable,” either alone or in combination, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c), and if so, whether they are “severe,” meaning only more than “slight,” Colson v. Colvin, 120 F. Supp. 3d 778, 788 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

At step two, an ALJ must assess whether a medically determinable impairment significantly limits basic work activities; chronic pain syndrome cannot be rejected categorically as such an impairment.

Myers v. Colvin · filed 2013-06-26(c)

At step two, a claimant must make a threshold showing that his medically determinable impairments significantly limit his ability to perform basic work activities. ... The ALJ’s finding with respect to chronic pain syndrome/disorder appears to lack both medical and legal support.

Section 404.1520 places the determination of whether a claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment at step two of the sequential evaluation.

Brandt v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-20(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ observed that Dr. Herbert is not an acceptable medical source in the discussion of medical opinion evidence at the RFC assessment stage. That observation was made at the wrong step of the sequential evaluation, but the error was harmless.

Section 404.1520(a)(2) does not require an ALJ to consider an impairment’s effect on residual functional capacity if the impairment is not medically determinable.

Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-17(a)(2)

And if an impairment is not medically determinable, then the ALJ need not consider the impact of that impairment on the claimant’s RFC. Id. § 404.1520(a)(2).

At step two, the ALJ must evaluate whether fibromyalgia is a medically determinable impairment under both the 1990 and 2010 criteria before deciding whether it is severe.

Bay v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-29(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, an ALJ must evaluate the entire medical record and determine whether a claimant has any MDIs, and whether such MDIs are “severe,” as defined by the Act. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1521, 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 416.921. ... For these reasons, it is clear—not to mention uncontested—the ALJ considered only the 1990 ACR criteria to determine whether fibromyalgia was medically determinable. Such error requires remand.

At step two, the ALJ must recognize a medically determinable mental impairment established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source.

Lail v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-30(a)(4)(ii)

Because those diagnoses—objective medical evidence—were given by an acceptable medical source after clinical testing, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), plaintiff established with objective medical evidence that he has medically determinable mental health impairments, which is all that is required of plaintiff.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability analysis, including determining at step two whether an impairment significantly limits basic work activities and at step four assessing residual functional capacity while considering all impairments, including nonsevere ones.

Mabry v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-07-31(c), (e)

The Social Security Administration has established a five-step process for determining whether an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). ... At step two, the Commissioner must determine if the claimant suffers from a severe impairment. An impairment is severe if it significantly limits an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... At step four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant can perform past relevant work in light of the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). RFC is the individual’s ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from his impairments. In evaluating RFC, the Commissioner evaluates all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e)–(f), 404.1545. ... Therefore, because the ALJ accommodated Mabry’s disc degeneration disease in providing these limitations, there is no error in her RFC determination.

Section 404.1520(f)(2) calls for a different disability rule for a claimant with marginal education and at least 35 years of arduous unskilled physical labor who can no longer do that work; the claimant’s work history must be developed before the rule is found inapplicable.

Maynor v. Heckler · filed 1984-11-19(f)(2)

1. The Secretary’s Finding, that Plaintiffs Claim is not Actionable Under 20 C.F.R. § 404-1520(f)(2), is not Supported by Substantial Evidence. ... Both the transcript of the hearing (Tr.-at 32-51) and the AU’s decision (Tr. at 16-22) contain no findings relevant to the applicability of these regulations. Most notably, there is no determination of the plaintiff’s work history.

Section 404.1520(f)(2) directs use of the special disability rule in § 404.1562 when a claimant meets its criteria for marginal education and long experience in arduous unskilled labor.

Antonio M. VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, D · filed 1984-07-20(f)(2)

Regulation 1520(f)(2), however, directs use of the rule provided in regulation 1562 if the claimant has “only a marginal education ... and long work experience (i.e., 35 years or more) where [the claimant] only did arduous unskilled physical labor ... and ... can no longer do this kind of work____”

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) places on the claimant the burden of providing medical evidence of a medically determinable impairment that prevents work.

Boston v. SSA · filed 2011-06-22(a)(4)(ii)

The claimant bears the burden of providing medical evidence showing that he or she suffers from a medically determinable impairment that prevents him or her from working. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512, 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); Gray v . Heckler, 760 F.2d 369, 372 (1st Cir. 1985).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step four to assess residual functional capacity and the claimant’s ability to return to past relevant work.

Riding v. Berryhill · filed 2018-06-11(a)(4)(iv)

At Step Four, the ALJ must assess: (1) the claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”); and (2) the claimant's ability to return to her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520 sets out a five step process for deciding whether an adult claimant is disabled.

McCauley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-06-04

A sequential five-step inquiry is used to determine whether a claimant is disabled. This process requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant (1) is currently working; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) has an impairment listed in or medically equivalent to those in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; ... (4) is able to do the kind of work he did in the past; and (5) can perform any other work.

Section 404.1520 sets out a five step process for determining whether a claimant is disabled.

Kyle v. Apfel · filed 2000-05-19(d)

The third step of the five part disability test requires a determination of whether a claimant has an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s supported need for a walker at steps three, four, and five of the disability evaluation.

Stilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31

Upon remand for further review of the record under step three, the ALJ should include Plaintiff's need for a walker during steps three, four and five of the disability review process, and include such limitation in the hypotheticals posed by the ALJ to the VE.

Under § 404.1520, an ALJ’s limited consideration of obesity at Steps Three and Four is harmless when the claimant shows no resulting limitation that would change the disability assessment.

Detres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28

The ALJ’s failure to explicitly evaluate obesity at Step Three and her (arguably) cursory evaluation of obesity when determining Detres’s RFC were at most harmless error.

At step three, § 404.1520 requires a claimant to show that an impairment meets or medically equals every criterion of a listed impairment; otherwise, the sequential evaluation proceeds to the next step.

Masterson v. SSA · filed 2024-03-25(a)(4)(iii), (d)-(e)

At Step 3, a claimant has the burden to show 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, 354 (6th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant 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) (emphasis added); 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.”). ... The ALJ found that Plaintiff did not satisfy 1.15B or D and, as such, did not qualify as presumptively disabled under this particular listing. ... The record supports his conclusions. ... As such, she has not carried her burden of presenting specific evidence that demonstrates she reasonably could meet or equal every requirement of Listing 1.15.

At step three, the claimant bears the burden of showing that an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; satisfying every listing criterion results in disability, while failure moves the evaluation to step four.

Stanko v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-05(a)(4)(iii), (d)-(e)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, plaintiff carries the burden to show 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, App. 1. ... If a claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, she is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to step four.

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

HORAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-04-10(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). ... In short, the Court concludes that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff did not meet or medically equal any listed impairment, including Listing 1.04.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step three to decide whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment; satisfying a listing presumptively establishes disability.

Cady, Christopher v. Kijakazi, Kilolo · filed 2023-04-17

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meet or medically equal the criteria of a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If an ALJ determines that a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listing, the claimant is presumptively disabled.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires evaluating whether a claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Gilbert v. Saul · filed 2022-01-06(a)(4)(iii)

With respect to the merits, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion with respect to her determinations that Plaintiff’s impairments do not meet or medically equal listing 4.02 (Chronic heart failure) or 4.04 (Ischemic heart disease). (Tr. 24-25); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (“Listings”).

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does and the duration requirement is met, the claimant is disabled.

COLEMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-06(a)(4)(iii), (d)

Under step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is equal to, or exceeds, one of those included in the Listing of Impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If an impairment or combination of impairments meets the statutory criteria of a listed impairment as well as the duration requirement, the claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520 permits an ALJ to support a step-three listing determination by discussing the relevant evidence elsewhere in the decision; the analysis need not be repeated in the step-three section.

Jarman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-23(d)

Like these cases, although the ALJ did not specifically address Listing 11.02, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not meet any listing and evaluated and discussed Plaintiff’s headaches with sufficient specificity for the Court to review the ALJ’s conclusion in the RFC analysis section. The Ninth Circuit does not require that an ALJ’s analysis supporting the listing conclusion be in the same section. Lewis, 236 F.3d at 513. Thus, the ALJ did not err.

At step three, an ALJ’s decision can support a finding that a claimant does not meet or equal a listed impairment when its own analysis provides substantial evidence for that determination.

McRoberts v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-29(a)(4)(iii)

After review of the ALJ’s decision, the court finds that the ALJ’s development of the record and analysis supports his step three determination that Claimant does not meet or equal Listings 13.13, 13.14 or 13.25.

At step three, a claimant bears the burden of identifying a potentially qualifying listing, and an ALJ need not specifically address a listing the claimant did not raise during the administrative proceedings.

SMITSON v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-03-18(d)

Because Joshua did not identify Listing 3.14 at his hearing and has not shown that he argued this Listing at any other stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that Joshua has not met his Step Three burden, and the ALJ did not err by failing to specifically address Listing 3.14.

At Step Three, an ALJ need not address a listing unless the evidence raises a substantial question that the claimant meets its requirements.

Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-09(a)(4)(iii)

Thus, the ALJ did not err by failing to address Listing 11.14 in his Step Three analysis.

At step three, a medical opinion used to decide whether an impairment meets or equals a listing must be clear enough to support the ALJ’s conclusion.

Burkholder v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-02(a)(4)

Where, as here, at this crucially determinative step in the sequential analysis which could determine whether a claimant is per se disabled under the regulations the ALJ has relied upon a medical opinion to make that determination, the opinion must have sufficient clarity to meet that conclusion.

At step three, an ALJ must explain whether the evidence satisfies the criteria of a relevant listed impairment; an unexplained determination warrants remand.

Carolan v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-03(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ determines whether a claimant has an “impairment[] that meets or equals” a listed impairment (a “Listing”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... Because the ALJ’s failure of explanation precludes the Court from determining whether substantial evidence supported their step-three determination, remand is warranted.

At step three, an ALJ may implicitly find that a claimant does not meet a listed impairment when substantial evidence supports that finding.

Butts v. Saul · filed 2021-03-19(a)(4)(iii)

An ALJ’s failure to expressly address whether a claimant meets a particular Listing is not error where substantial evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the claimant does not meet the Listing.

At step three, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant’s impairments in combination meet or equal a listed impairment and explain the finding sufficiently for meaningful review.

INGANDELA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-18(a)(4)(iii)

Here, the Court is persuaded by Plaintiff’s position, chiefly that the ALJ failed to tether his step three findings to sufficient credible medical evidence in the record and did not consider her mental impairments in combination with each other.

At step three, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to consider whether a Listing applies but sets no minimum articulation standard for that analysis.

Cuckovic v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-13(a)(4)(iii)

The regulations do not set forth a minimum articulation standard that the ALJ must meet in analyzing the relevant Listings.

At step three, the ALJ must assess whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; conclusory findings are insufficient.

Phillips v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-30(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ failed to properly assess her knee impairments under listing 1.02A or elsewhere in the decision and the ALJ’s conclusory findings are not supported by substantial evidence. On remand the ALJ shall reconsider the step three findings with assistance of medical expert testimony.

At step three, an ALJ must assess whether a severe impairment meets or equals a listing when the claimant presents a plausible theory of equivalence.

Gates v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-21(d)

By failing to provide any discussion of whether Plaintiff’s migraine headaches met or equaled a listing after finding migraines were a severe impairment, the ALJ committed legal error.

At the third step of the disability analysis, an impairment must meet or equal a listed impairment considered severe enough to preclude gainful work.

Jackson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2011-06-24(a)(4)(iii)

The reports were thus in line with the medical evidence credited by the ALJ that, although Jackson’s vision was impaired on the relevant date, he had not established that his impairments matched those on a list that are presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, § 404.1520(d) provides that an impairment meeting an Appendix 1 listing establishes a presumption of disability.

Barillaro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-08-20(d)

Appendix 1 contains “[a] list of certain impairments, any of which is sufficient, at step three, to create an irre-buttable presumption of disability.”

At step three, a claimant is disabled if the claimant’s severe impairment meets or exceeds a listed impairment in Appendix 1 to Part 404.

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

In order to qualify as disabled at step three of the evaluation, a claimant must meet or exceed the listed impairments in Appendix 1 to Part 404 of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d). In order to meet a listing in Appendix 1 for a mental disorder, a claimant must satisfy criteria in paragraph A of the listings, which medically substantiate the presence of a mental disorder, and the criteria in paragraphs B or C, which describe the functional limitations associated with the disorder which are incompatible with the ability to work.

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ to determine, using medical evidence, whether the claimant's impairment meets or exceeds a listed impairment, in which case the claimant is awarded disability benefits.

Santise v. Schweiker · filed 1982-04-08(d)

Third, the ALJ decides, again using only medical evidence, whether the impairment equals or exceeds in severity certain impairments described in Appendix 1 of the regulations; if it does, the claimant automatically is awarded disability benefits. Id. at § 404.1520(d).

At the third step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment listed in Appendix 1; failure to consider that issue can require reversal.

Santise v. Schweiker · filed 1982-04-08(d)

In Livingston, the AU failed adequately to develop the record; he rejected an applicant’s request for disability benefits without considering whether the applicant was disabled per se (by reason of possessing an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)) and without considering his age, education, and work experience. 614 F.2d at 346. If, under the Department’s new guidelines, an AU fails to consider such matters, his decision also would be subject to reversal under Livingston.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability without considering age, education, or work experience when the claimant has an impairment meeting the durational requirement that is listed in Appendix 1 or equals a listed impairment.

May v. Heckler · filed 1985-04-30(d)

An affirmative answer to one of the above questions leads either to the next question or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of nondisability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1983); ... Specifically, the third step states: “If you have an impairment which meets the dura-tional requirement and is listed in Appendix 1, or we determine that the impairment is equal to one of the listed impairments, we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 1520(d). ... A finding of the existence of a functional psychotic disorder (schizophrenia and paranoid states), within the meaning of § 12.03, was compelled. An affirmative answer to the question embodied in step three was compelled, and there was no occasion to reach steps four or five."

At the third evaluation stage, § 404.1520(d) determines disability without considering vocational factors and asks only whether the impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

Franklin B. BERNAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1988-06-27(d)

At this step, a finding of “disability” is made without consideration of vocational factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (1986).

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ, when deciding at step three whether a claimant equals a listed impairment, to adequately explain the evaluation of alternative tests and the combined effects of the impairments.

Lee R. MARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1990-04-02(d)

We hold that, in determining whether a claimant equals a listing under step three of the Secretary’s disability evaluation process, the AU must explain adequately his evaluation of alternative tests and the combined effects of the impairments.

At step three, a claimant who proves a listed impairment is presumptively disabled without consideration of age, education, or work experience.

Barbara A. CARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1991-07-26(d)

The analysis is terminated after the third step if a claimant proves the existence of a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. At that point, she is presumptively determined to be disabled, without consideration of her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

At step three, the regulation requires a finding of disability when an impairment is listed or medically equivalent to a listed impairment.

Spradlin v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1993-03-09(d)

Third, if the claimant has a severe impairment, it is compared with the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, Appendix 1 (1990). 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) (1990).

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled at step three when the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Herbert RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1993-11-09(d)

If a claimant's impairment either meets the listed criteria for the diagnosis or is medically equivalent to the criteria of the diagnosis, Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 504 (9th Cir.1990) (citations omitted), he is conclusively presumed to be disabled, Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d at 1395; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability when a claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, ending the sequential evaluation.

Atiya v. HHS · filed 1994-08-24(d)

At Step 3 of the sequential analysis, the claimant bears the burden of proving that he or she has an impairment that meets or equals the criteria of an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the Secretary's regulations. ... If the claimant meets this burden, the Secretary is required to find the claimant disabled, and need go no further in the evaluation process. ... See 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d).

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

Prak v. Chater · filed 1995-07-05(d)

A claimant is disabled at step three if he proves that his condition meets or equals an impairment listed in the applicable regulations.

At step three, § 404.1520(d) requires the Secretary to find a claimant disabled automatically when the claimant has an impairment listed in Appendix 1, without considering vocational factors.

St. Arnault v. Secretary,HHS · filed 1995-08-03(d)

If a claimant's condition qualifies as an impairment noted in Appendix 1, the Secretary shall automatically make a finding of "disabled" without considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Should the ALJ find a claimant disabled at step three, the inquiry ends without continuing on to steps four and five. ... To recapitulate, based on a review of the medical evidence presented in the administrative transcript, this court opines the ALJ's determination, at step three of the seguential evaluation, finding Mr. St. Arnault's condition not egual to a listed impairment, is not supported by substantial evidence.

At step three, the claimant must prove that an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if that burden is met, the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled and stop the sequential evaluation.

Irish v. SSA · filed 1996-02-27(d)

At step three of the sequential analysis, the ALJ evaluates the claimant's condition under the criteria provided in the Commissioner's regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 4 0 4 , Subpart P, Appendix 1 . 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d) (1994). The claimant bears the burden of proving that he has an impairment that meets or equals the criteria of a listed impairment. Dudley v . Secretary of Health and Human Services, 816 F.2d 7 9 2 , 793 (1st Cir. 1987). If the claimant meets his burden, the Commissioner is required to find the claimant disabled, and need go no further in the evaluation process. Id.; see §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520(d) requires the claimant's impairment to be evaluated against the listed impairments at step three; failure to meet or equal a listing ends the sequential evaluation.

Morgan v. SSA · filed 1996-04-26(d)

At step three of the Commissioner's sequential analysis, the ALJ evaluates the claimant's condition under the criteria established at 20 C.F.R. Part 4 0 4 , Subpart P, Appendix 1 . 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d) (1994). The claimant bears the burden of proving that his impairment meets or equals the criteria of a listed impairment, e.g., Dudley v . Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 816 F.2d 7 9 2 , 793 (1st Cir. 1987), and any failure to satisfy this burden concludes the evaluation process, id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520's sequential evaluation requires a claimant with a severe impairment who is not engaged in substantial gainful activity to qualify at the listing step by meeting or medically equaling a listed impairment.

Byrd v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 1998-12-31(d)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, if a person has a severe impairment and is not engaging in substantial gainful activity, a disability claim will be granted if the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that either meets or equals the criteria of an impairment listed in Appendix 1, which in the case of an obesity claim is 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 9.09. Section 9.09 requires that a claimant meet certain weight and height requirements, and it is uncontested that Byrd did not meet these criteria.

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

Martin v. Apfel · filed 2000-08-30(d)

Step three of the five step process used by the Social Security Administration to evaluate a disability states that if the claimant has an impairment(s) which meet(s) the durational requirement and is listed in Appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment(s), the Social Security Commissioner will find the claimant disabled without considering age, education, and work experience.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability through a five-step sequence, including comparing severe impairments with listed impairments at step three.

Cadillac v. Comm Social Security · filed 2003-12-11(d)

To determine whether a claimant qualifies for Disability Insurance Benefits, the Commissioner must consider, in sequence: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether the severe impairment meets or equals the criteria of an impairment listed in the Social Security Administration Regulations; (4) if not, whether the claimant’s impairment prevents the performance of past relevant work; and (5) if so, whether the claimant can perform any other work in the national economy, given the claimant’s age, education, experience, and health. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428. ... At Step Three of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must compare the claimant’s medical evidence to a list of impairments presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). We have explained that at the third step of analysis, “this Court requires the ALJ to set forth the reasons” for his or her decision.

At step three, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant meets a listed impairment without considering vocational factors such as education or work experience.

Kavadius v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-03(d)

Thus, the ALJ must consider whether plaintiffs condition meets the listings without reference to vocational factors such as education or work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d); 416. 920(d).

Section 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant is disabled at step three when the claimant's impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1.

Olivares v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-04-06(d)

With respect to step three, Olivares argues that the ALJ failed to adequately explain why Olivares’s medical condition did not satisfy any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 to the Social Security regulations, thereby establishing that he was disabled per se. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... Olivares’s argument with respect to step three of the sequential analysis is frivolous. ... Accordingly, there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination at step three that Olivares did not have a listed impairment.

Section 404.1520(d) directs the Commissioner to find a claimant disabled at step three when the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and satisfies the duration requirement.

Hicks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-07-27(d)

Third, if plaintiff is not performing substantial gainful activity, has a severe impairment that is expected to last for at least twelve months, and the impairment meets a listed impairment, plaintiff is presumed to be disabled regardless of age, education or work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d)(2000). ... Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Hicks’ impairments did not meet or equal any impairment listed in Appendix 1 (Part A) to 20 C.F.R part 404, subpt. P.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to evaluate at step three whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

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

At Step 3 of the SSA’s sequential evaluation process, the Commissioner evaluates the record evidence to determine whether or not claimants have an impairment that “meets or equals” one of the listings in Appendix 1. ... Although the Court expresses no opinion as to whether Mr. Brown satisfies the criteria in either the original or the revised Appendix 1, it nevertheless agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ should have applied the revised list, and that his failure to do so constitutes reversible error.

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ at step three to compare the claimant’s impairment with the listed impairments presumed severe enough to prevent substantial gainful work, and the claimant bears the burden of showing listing-level severity.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-12-06(d)

In reviewing claims for disability benefits, an ALJ performs a five-step analysis to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. At issue in this case are the third and fourth steps. 2 In step three, the ALJ compares the medical evidence the claimant has offered to demonstrate her impairment to a list of impairments that are presumed severe enough to preclude the claimant from engaging in substantial gainful work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If a claimant’s impairment is not one of those listed or an equivalent, the ALJ then determines whether the claimant, despite her impairment, has the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The claimant bears the burden of proof at each of these steps in the sequential evaluation process. Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428.

At step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s medical evidence with the listed impairments and their equivalents; if none matches, the evaluation proceeds to steps four and five.

Jenkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-08-18(d)

Third, the Commissioner looks at the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) and determines whether the claimant’s medical evidence demonstrates one of these impairments or its equivalent. Id. If the determination is in the negative, the analysis proceeds to steps four and five. ... Accordingly substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Jenkins’ impairments did not match any of those listed.

Section 404.1520 requires specific medical findings consistent with a particular listed impairment; a bare assertion of severity and a list of symptoms do not satisfy the disability analysis.

Lawson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-08-22

Lawson’s counsel attempts to argue that Dr. Ward’s diagnosis of “severe” degenerative disc disease qualifies Lawson for disability benefits, but this bare assertion of severity and a listing of Lawson’s claimed symptoms does not satisfy the analysis for disability as set forth in the SSA’s regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, in the absence of evidence of specific medical findings consistent with a particular listed impairment.

At Step Three, an ALJ should identify the specific listings under consideration, but failing to do so requires remand only when the analysis is also perfunctory.

Mogg, Larry R. v. Astrue, Michael J. · filed 2008-01-28(a)(4)

Mogg argues that the ALJ failed to abide by a well-settled rule of law that requires him to mention the specific listing he is considering at Step Three of the five-step analysis for evaluating a disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). This, he argues, amounts to “illegal behavior,” which is never substantially justified. There are two problems with this argument. First, Mogg misstates our precedent. Although we have previously found error where the ALJ did not mention the specific listings he considered, we have not announced a bright-line rule. Rather, our cases hold that “an ALJ should mention the specific listings he is considering and his failure to do so, if combined with a ‘perfunctory analysis,’ may require a remand.”

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ at step three to decide whether the claimant is conclusively disabled based on a listed impairment, including an impairment that meets or medically equals a listing.

Collins v. Barnhart · filed 2008-02-04(d)

At step three, an ALJ must determine whether claimant was conclusively disabled based on one of the agency’s listed impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1. Under a theory of presumptive disability, a claimant is eligible for benefits if they have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals an impairment found in the listing.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) directs the ALJ to decide whether the claimant’s impairment or impairments meets or equals an Appendix 1 listing.

Torres v. Comm Social Security · filed 2008-05-29(a)(4)(iii)

The Social Security regulations set forth a five-step sequential evaluation to determine if an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. In the third step, the ALJ considers the severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) and checks to see if the impairment(s) meets or equals one of the impairments listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... Here, the ALJ failed at step three by failing to consider Torres’ impairments in combination when determining medical equivalence.

At the third step, § 404.1520(d) presumes disability when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Bull v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-05-29(d)

If the impairment meets or equals any within the Listing, disability is presumed and benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

At step three of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ need not identify a specific listed impairment if the decision clearly analyzes the relevant medical evidence against the listing requirements and permits meaningful judicial review.

Scuderi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-12-11

Thus, an ALJ need not specifically mention any of the listed impairments in order to make a judicially reviewable finding, provided that the ALJ’s decision clearly analyzes and evaluates the relevant medical evidence as it relates to the Listing requirements. ... The ALJ’s analysis was sufficient to permit meaningful judicial review of her conclusion at step three of the sequential analysis.

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.

Crandlemere v. SSA · filed 2013-01-15(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's impairment "meets or equals one of [the] listings" in Subpart P, Appendix 1 of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, the regulation provides that a claimant is disabled when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Courson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-07(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant is disabled if his impairments meet or medically equal one of the specific requirements of a medical listing in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... Because the ALJ failed to address whether Courson’s degenerative disc disease met Listing 1.04, this Court cannot effectively review the ALJ’s decision at step three. Accordingly, this Court remands this matter so that the ALJ can address Listing 1.04.

At step three, § 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Woods v. Saul · filed 2020-10-16(d)

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is of a severity to meet or medically equal the criteria of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, 416.926) (called “The Listings”). ... In sum, the ALJ erred when he failed to consider whether Woods’s migraine headache impairment was medically equivalent to Listing 11.02; that error was not harmless.

At step three, an impairment that meets or equals an Appendix 1 listing and satisfies the duration requirement establishes that the claimant is disabled.

May v. SSA · filed 2023-11-08(a)(4)(iii)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), “[a]t the third step, we also consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). If you have an impairment(s) that meets or equals one of our listings in appendix 1 of this subpart and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are disabled.”

At step three, the ALJ must compare the claimant’s impairments with the relevant listing and explain that consideration sufficiently for later review.

Gill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-11(a)(4)(iii)

The regulations require that the ALJ consider the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments against the relevant listing, and articulate that consideration for subsequent review. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); Reynolds, 424 F. App’x at 416.

Section 404.1520 does not permit a finding of non-disability at step one based on daily activities, but permits consideration of those activities at step four.

Bertha MACIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant- · filed 1987-07-14(b), (e)

This regulation prevents the determination of non-disability at the first step of the sequential evaluation process on the basis of daily activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). The regulations do not, however, prevent the AU from considering daily activities at the fourth step of the sequential evaluation process.

Section 404.1520(d) directs a finding of disability when impairments meet or equal a listed impairment, while subsection (e) requires evaluating residual functional capacity and past relevant work when medical facts alone do not resolve the claim.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-05-23(d), (e)

The Social Security Administration uses a 5-step sequence to determine disability. Subsection (d) provides: "When your impairments) meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1. If you have an impairments) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in Appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairments), we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... Subsection (e) provides: "Your impairment(s) must prevent you from doing past relevant work. If we cannot make a decision based on your current work activity or on medical facts alone, and you have a severe impairment(s), we then review your residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the work you have done in the past. If you can still do this kind of work, we will find that you are not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Subsection (e) requires the Secretary to assess residual functional capacity against past work when disability cannot be decided from current work activity or medical facts alone; under subsection (f), after a claimant shows inability to return to past work, the Secretary must establish capacity for specific jobs while considering age, education, and past work experience.

Talifson v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1982-10-25(e), (f)

The steps to be utilized by the Secretary in evaluating whether a particular claimant is “disabled” for purposes of the Social Security Act are specifically enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Subsection (e) of that section provides, that if the claimant has a severe impairment but the Secretary is unable to make a “disability” determination based on the claimant’s current work activity or on medical facts alone, then the Secretary must review the claimant’s physical and mental capacity (i.e., residual functional capacity) and determine whether that capacity will allow the claimant to meet the demands of the work performed by the claimant in the past. If the conclusion reached in that respect is affirmative, an ultimate determination that the claimant is not disabled is mandatory; further inquiry by the Secretary being unnecessary. ... Once a claimant makes a prima facie showing that the impairment of which he complains effectively precludes him from returning to his past work, however, the burden of going forward shifts to the Secretary. ... The Secretary must establish that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform specific jobs, taking into consideration the claimant’s age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(a) requires the Secretary to review, in sequence, current work activity, impairment severity, residual functional capacity, and age, education, and work experience when evaluating whether a claimant remains disabled.

A. Harris ADAMS, as Guardian of the Property of Andrew J. Rushing, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Defendan · filed 1984-09-27(a)

In deciding whether a claimant is still disabled, the Secretary is required to utilize the sequential evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 (1983). ... The sequential evaluation process requires that the Secretary review, in order, the claimant’s current work activity, the severity of the claimed impairment, the residual functional capacity of the claimant, and the claimant’s age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) and 416.920(a) (1983).

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

Stewart v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-10(a)-(f)

The Commissioner analyzes a claim in five steps. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f)- ... A positive finding at step one or a negative finding at step two results in disapproval of the application for benefits. A positive finding at step three results in approval of the application for benefits. At step four, the claimant bears the burden of establishing a severe impairment that precludes the performance of past relevant work. If the claimant carries this burden, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to ... establish that despite the claimant’s impairments, the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy. ... If the Commissioner carries this burden, the claimant must prove that he or she cannot perform the work suggested by the Commissioner.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether an applicant is disabled, including review of current work, impairment severity, listed impairments, residual functional capacity for past work, and adjustment to other work.

Chiaradio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-04-26

In determining whether an applicant is disabled within the meaning of the Act, and therefore eligible for benefits, the Commissioner applies a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ must review: (1) the claimant‟s current work activity; (2) the severity of the claimant‟s impairments; (3) whether the claimant‟s impairments meet or equal the requirements of an impairment listed in the regulations; (4) whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to return to past relevant work; and (5) if claimant cannot return to past relevant work, whether she can “make an adjustment to other work” in the national economy. Id. If the claimant fails to show that her disabilities are severe, the claim will be denied.

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

Todd v. Apfel · filed 1998-05-20(b), (c), (d), (e), (f)

Entitlement to Social Security benefits is determined by the use of a five-step sequential analysis set forth in the Social Security Regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. First, the claimant must not be engaged in substantial gainful activity for a period of not less than twelve months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b) and 416.920(b). Second, a finding must be made that the claimant suffers from a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). In the third step, the ALJ determines whether the impairment meets or equals the severity criteria set forth in the Listing of Impairments contained in the Social Security Regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, 416.926. If the impairment satisfies the criteria for a listed impairment, then the claimant is considered to be disabled. On the other hand, if the claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ must undertake the fourth step in the analysis and determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to return to any past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e). If the ALJ finds the claimant unable to perform past relevant work, then as the fifth step the ALJ must show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential five-step process, including determinations concerning substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work.

Rams v. Chater · filed 1997-12-11(a)-(f)

The ALJ’s finding that plaintiff is not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence. At step one of the prescribed sequential analysis, the record does not present substantial evidence that plaintiff was engaged, up to the time of the ALJ hearing, in substantial gainful employment. At step two, the ALJ did not make a finding that plaintiff’s impairments were not severe. The ALJ’s finding as to step three is not outcome-determinative as a matter of law. At step four, the record contained insufficient evidence to support a finding that plaintiff was able to perform her past relevant work. Finally, the ALJ did not make a step-five finding.

Section 404.1520 provides a five-step sequence for evaluating disability claims, with the claimant bearing the burden on the first four steps and the Secretary bearing it on the final step.

Ghazibayat v. Schweiker · filed 1983-01-10

This analysis of the relative burdens of proof is correct. The five-step analysis adopted in the 1980 regulations did not supplant the standards cited by the Magistrate, as the Secretary implies, but merely provided a more detailed model for applying those standards. This five-step sequence has been summarized as follows: “[1] First, the Secretary considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. [2] If he is not, the Secretary next considers whether the claimant has a ‘severe impairment’ which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. [3] If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. If the claimant has such an impairment, the Secretary will consider him disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience; the Secretary presumes that a claimant who is afflicted with a ‘listed’ impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity. [4] Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant’s severe impairment, he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past work. [5] Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the Secretary then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform. Under the cases previously discussed, the claimant bears the burden of proof as to the first four steps, while the Secretary must prove the final one.” Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir.1982); 20 CFR §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1982).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps, and when a claimant cannot return to former work, the analysis must proceed to determine whether other substantial gainful activity is available.

Dixon v. Schweiker · filed 1983-05-30

The regulations set forth five sequential steps in evaluating disability. 20 CFR § 404.1520; ... The ALJ stopped his analysis at step four, after finding that plaintiff can return to past work as a janitor. Because this finding is contrary to the evidence, the ALJ made an error of law and the case must be remanded to proceed with the sequential analysis. The plaintiff has shown that he cannot return to former work, so the burden shifts to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to show that there is other employment the claimant is capable of performing. ... Accordingly, I will remand so that the ALJ can proceed with the final step of the required analysis to determine if there is other substantial gainful activity the plaintiff can perform in light of his residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential disability-evaluation process, and permits denial at the severity step only when an impairment or combination of impairments does not significantly limit basic work activities.

Merrill W. REICHENBACH, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1985-09-18(a), (c)

To determine whether an individual is disabled, the Social Security Administration has promulgated regulations establishing a sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1985). If an individual is found not disabled at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). Under the process, the AU must determine in sequence: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether he has a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether that impairment meets the medical criteria of Appendix 1 which warrants a finding of disability without considering vocational factors; and (4) if not, whether the impairment prevents claimant from performing past relevant work. By satisfying step 3 or 4, the claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability which shifts the burden to the Secretary to show whether the claimant is able to perform other work considering his residual functional capacities and his age, education, and past work experience. ... The Secretary is authorized to deny claims if the claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). An impairment is “not severe” or insignificant only if it is a slight abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience. ... Since Reichenbach has several physical impairments as well as a deteriorating borderline intelligence as noted by his I.Q. of 75, we conclude that the Secretary must consider these various impairments in combination in determining whether they are severe enough to prohibit basic work related activities.

Subsections (d) and (e) require an ALJ first to decide from medical evidence whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and, if not, to assess residual functional capacity against the claimant’s past work.

Benjamin v. Bowen · filed 1987-12-30(d), (e)

Upon finding that a claimant is not engaged in a substantial gainful activity, the ALJ must determine, solely on the basis of medical evidence, whether the impairment(s) meets or equals a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Appendix 1, Subpart P, Reg. No. 4, of the Regulations. If the impairment is listed or is the equivalent of an impairment listed in Appendix 1, the claimant is found disabled without considering age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If, however, determination cannot be made on the basis of medical facts alone, then the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s residual functional capacity in comparison to the physical and mental demands of the individual’s past work. If the AU determines that the claimant possesses the residual functional capacity to perform his or her past work, then the claimant is found not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation, and a finding of disability or nondisability at any step ends the Secretary’s analysis.

Estelle v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1989-10-06(b)-(f)

In determining whether a claimant is capable of performing substantial gainful activity, the Secretary uses a five-step sequential procedure set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b)-(f) (1988): ... A finding that a claimant is disabled or not disabled at any point in the five-step process is conclusive and terminates the Secretary’s analysis.

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential disability determination that proceeds from substantial gainful activity and severe impairment through listed impairments, past work, and the claimant’s ability to perform other work.

Jackie D. Price v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1989-12-12(b), (c), (d), (e), (f)(1)

If the claimant is working and the work constitutes substantial gainful activity, benefits are automatically denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If the claimant is not found to have an impairment which significantly limits his or her ability to work (a severe impairment), then he or she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the claimant is not working and has a severe impairment, it must be determined whether he or she suffers from one of the "listed" impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1525(a), 416.925(a). If so, benefits are owing without further inquiry. In the instant case, the ALJ found that Price did not suffer from one of the listed impairments. In such a case, assuming the individual had previously worked, the Secretary must next decide whether the claimant can return to the job he or she previously held. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). By showing "a medical basis for an impairment that prevents him from engaging in his particular occupation," the claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability. Hephner v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir.1978). In the instant case the ALJ found that Price was not capable of returning to his particular occupation. At this step in the analysis it becomes the Secretary's burden to establish the claimant's ability to work. Allen, 613 F.2d at 145. The Secretary must prove that, taking into consideration present job qualifications such as age, experience, education, and physical capacity, and the existence of jobs to match those qualifications, the claimant retains the capacity to perform a different kind of job. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f)(1), 416.920(f)(1); Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460 (1983).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, with vocational factors considered at step five when the claimant cannot perform past work.

Taylor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1989-12-14

The social security regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation of a disability claim. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1988): 1. An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful activity will not be found to be "disabled" regardless of medical findings. 2. An individual who does not have a "severe impairment" will not be found to be "disabled." 3. If an individual is not working and is suffering from a severe impairment which meets the duration requirement and which "meet or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1" of Subpart P of Regulations No. 4, a finding of "disabled" will be made without consideration of vocational factors. 4. If an individual is capable of performing work he or she has done in the past, a finding of "not disabled" must be made. 5. If an individual's impairment is so severe as to preclude the performance of past work, other factors including age, education, past work experience and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if other work can be performed.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential five-step inquiry, with the claim advancing to the next step or ending in a disability finding on an affirmative answer at steps three or five, and generally ending in a nondisability finding on a negative answer.

Short v. Sullivan · filed 1989-12-29

In determining whether a claimant is disabled under the Act, the fact-finder is required to make the following sequential five-step inquiry: ... “An affirmative answer leads either to the next step or, in steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the claimant is disabled. A negative answer at any point, other than step 3, stops the inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled.” ... The ALJ reached his decision at step five of the sequential inquiry. It is undisputed that Mr. Short has not engaged in substantial gainful activity, that he has a severe impairment that does not meet the listed impairments and that he cannot return to his former job as a heavy laborer.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential analysis addressing current work, severity, listed-equivalent impairments, past work, and other substantial gainful activity.

Curtis SELDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appel · filed 1990-09-07(b), (c), (d), (e)

In evaluating a claim of disability, the Secretary conducts a five-step sequential analysis: (1) the claimant is not presently working, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b); (2) the claimant has a severe impairment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); (3) the impairment is not listed in, or equivalent to, an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the Regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); (4) the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); and (5) the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other substantial gainful activity.

Section 404.1520(d) requires determining whether a claimant has a listed impairment, and § 404.1520(e) requires deciding whether a claimant can return to past work when no listed impairment is present.

Strbiak v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-04-02(d), (e)

If the claimant is not working in substantial gainful activity and has a severe impairment, the Secretary must determine whether she suffers from one of the impairments listed in the Code of Federal Regulations. ... If so, the claimant is entitled to social security benefits. If the claimant does not suffer from a "listed" impairment, the Secretary must then decide whether the claimant can return to the job she previously held. ... If the claimant can return to the job she previously held, then she is not entitled to disability benefits.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for determining disability, including the Secretary's burden at the fifth step to show that a claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Slayter v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-07-22(f)

The Secretary employs a five-step process in making this determination. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. First, if the claimant can engage in substantial gainful activity, then the individual is not disabled. Id. at §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If not, the Secretary determines whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. If the answer to this question in negative, then the individual is not disabled. Id. at §§ 404,1520(c), 416.920(c). Third, if the claimant is medically impaired, the Secretary determines whether the impairment meets or equals one of a number of listed impairments that the secretary acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. If the claimant's ailment is within one of these categories, then the individual is presumed to be disabled. Id. at §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the claimant is not presumed to be disabled, the process continues to the fourth step where the Secretary determines whether the claimant can engage in past relevant work. Id. at §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the claimant can perform past relevant work, then the individual is not disabled. Finally, if the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, then the secretary has the burden to prove that, given the individual's residual capacities, the individual can perform other work which exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. at §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If other work can be performed, then the claimant does not qualify for disability insurance.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence: substantial gainful activity, severity of impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work considering vocational factors.

Gibbs v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-11-06(b)-(f)

In determining eligibility for disability benefits, the ALJ properly applied the following sequential evaluation: 1. An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful activity will not be found "disabled" regardless of medical findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). 2. An individual who does not have an impairment or combination of impairments which will significantly limit one's ability to do basic work will not be found to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). 3. If an individual is not working and is suffering from a severe impairment which meets the duration requirement and which meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of Regulations No. 4, a finding of "disabled" will be made without consideration of vocational factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). 4. If an individual is capable of performing work he or she has done in the past, a finding of "not disabled" must be made. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). 5. If an individual's impairment is so severe as to preclude performance of past work, other factors, including age, education, past work experience and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if other work can be performed. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process addressing substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, past work, and other available work.

Chartier v. Shalala, Secretary · filed 1995-02-21

The Secretary utilizes a five-step sequential evaluation set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 in considering disability claims. This five-step procedure is summarized as follows: First, the Secretary considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, the Secretary next considers whether the claimant has a "severe impairment" which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impair- ment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. If the claimant has such an impairment, the Secretary will consider him disabled without considering vocation factors such as age, education, and work experience; the Secretary presumes that a claimant who is afflicted with a "listed" impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity. Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant's severe impairment, he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the Secretary then determines whether there is other work which the claimant can perform.

Section 404.1520 requires sequential evaluation of disability claims, including whether the claimant has a severe impairment, a listed impairment, and—if not—whether the claimant can perform other work considering relevant vocational factors.

Wright v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-04-15(b), (d), (f)(1)

If the claimant is working and the work constitutes substantial gainful activity, benefits are automatically denied. If a claimant is not found to have an impairment which significantly limits his ability to work (a severe impairment), then he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). ... If a claimant is not working and has a severe impairment, it must be determined whether he or she suffers from one of the "listed" impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If so, benefits are owing without further inquiry. ... At this step in the analysis, it becomes the Secretary's burden to establish the claimant's ability to work. ... The Secretary must prove that, taking into consideration present job qualifications such as age, experience, education and physical capacity, and the existence of jobs to match those qualifications, a claimant retains the capacity to perform a different kind of job. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f)(1), 416.920(f); Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460 (1983).

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential analysis: current substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed or equivalent impairment, ability to perform past relevant work, and ability to perform other substantial gainful activity.

Waters v. Chater · filed 1995-08-21

In evaluating a claim of disability, the Secretary conducts a five-step sequential analysis: 1) whether the claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity, 2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment, 3) whether the impairment is listed, or equivalent to an impairment listed, in Appendix 1 of the Regulations, 4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work, and 5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, including consideration of substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past work, and other available work.

Francese v. Shalala · filed 1995-09-05

The Secretary of Health and Human Services has established a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability insurance claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Essentially, a five step analysis of the claimant’s alleged disability is to be made. ... First, the Secretary considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, the Secretary next considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. If the claimant has such an impairment, the Secretary will consider him disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience; the Secretary presumes that a claimant who is afflicted with a “listed” impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity. Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant’s severe impediment, he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the Secretary then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, with the burden shifting to the Secretary at the final step when the claimant cannot perform past relevant work but is not automatically disabled.

Silas R. Garland v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1996-03-05

To determine whether a claimant has met his burden of establishing disability, the ALJ must follow a five-step sequential process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. First, he must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; and if he is, the claimant will be found "not disabled" and the proceeding is at an end. Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the ALJ must determine on the basis of medical evidence whether the claimant has a severe impairment, defined as one which "significantly limits ... physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." If the claimant does not have a severe impairment, then he will be found not disabled. Third, if the ALJ determines that claimant has a severe impairment that meets the duration requirements imposed by the regulations, or is one specifically listed in the regulations, then the claimant will be found disabled without consideration of vocational factors. However, if the impairment does not preclude the claimant from performing his past relevant work, then he will be found not disabled. Finally, if a claimant's impairment is so severe as to preclude him from engaging in his past relevant work, but is not so severe as to render him statutorily disabled, then the burden shifts to the Secretary to establish claimant's residual functional capacity to engage in substantial gainful activity in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Shelman v. Heckler, 821 F.2d 316, 320 (6th Cir.1987) (citations omitted).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of a disability claim, including assessment of current substantial gainful activity, severity, listed-equivalence, past relevant work, and other work available in the national economy.

Cline v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-05-01

The ALJ correctly applied the five-step sequential evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. First, he found that Cline was not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. Second, he found Cline’s colostomy problem to be a “severe” impairment. Third, he concluded that the impairment was not listed “or medically equal to one listed” in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. Fourth, he accepted Cline’s contention that Cline could not perform past relevant work. Fifth, he nonetheless determined that there were a significant number of jobs in the national economy available to Cline.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential five-step process for deciding disability claims, ending the review when a claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any step.

Lawson v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-10-07(a)

The applicable regulations provide a step-by-step review process for determining whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If at any step in the review process the Commissioner makes the decision that the plaintiff is or is not disabled, review of the claim ceases. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The evaluation of disability claims proceeds as follows: (1) If the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, benefits are denied without further analysis; (2) If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, benefits are denied without further analysis; (3) If the severe impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed in the regulations, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled without further analysis; (4) If the claimant is able to perform their previous work, benefits are denied without further analysis; and (5) If the claimant is able to perform other work within the national economy, taking into consideration claimant's age, education, and work experience, benefits are denied.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence addressing substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past work, and other available work.

Pickering v. Chater · filed 1996-11-13

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

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate a disability claim through five sequential steps, including whether the claimant can perform past work and other work in the national economy.

Thompson v. SSA · filed 1998-04-09

The ALJ is required to employ the following five steps in sequence when analyzing a disability claim: 1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; 2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; 3) whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment described in Appendix 1; 4) whether the claimant has sufficient residual functional capacity which is defined as what an individual can do despite limitations in performing [his] past work; and 5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other gainful and substantial work within the economy based upon [his] age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1997).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially for substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, a listed impairment, and ability to perform past relevant work.

Reddick v. Chater · filed 1998-10-06(b), (c), (d), (e)

Disability claims are evaluated according to a five-step procedure. Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1395 (9th Cir.1991). In step one, the Secretary determines whether a claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). In step two, the Secretary determines whether the claimant has a "medically severe impairment or combination of impairments," as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the answer is no, the claimant is not disabled. If the answer is yes, the Secretary proceeds to step three and determines whether the impairment meets or equals a "listed" impairment that the Secretary has acknowledged to be so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If this requirement is met, the claimant is conclusively presumed disabled; if not, the Secretary proceeds to step four. At step four, the Secretary determines whether the claimant can still perform "past relevant work." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence addressing substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past work, and other work.

Pilet v. Apfel · filed 1998-09-23(c), (d), (e), (f)

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations that employ a series of tests to determine whether a claimant is disabled. ... In particular, the Social Security Administration asks five questions in the following order: ... First, is the claimant currently engaged in a substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is automatically considered not disabled. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(b) (1997). ... Second, does the claimant have a severe impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities? 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Third, if a claimant has a severe impairment which meets the duration requirement, the next question is whether the impairment or combination of impairments is listed in or equivalent to impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Supt. P, App. 1 (hereinafter Appendix 1). If so, then the claimant is automatically considered disabled. ... The fourth question asks whether the claimant’s impairment prevents her from performing the sort of work she has done in the past. ... If not, she is not disabled. If so, the agency asks the fifth question: Does the claimant’s impairment prevent her from performing other work of the sort found in the economy? ... If so, she is disabled; if not, she is not disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of a claimant’s disability, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner bearing the burden at the fifth step.

Cirino v. Apfel · filed 1999-02-11

First, the Secretary considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, the Secretary next considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” which significantly limits, his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. If the claimant has such an impairment, the Secretary will consider him disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience; the Secretary presumes that a claimant who is afflicted with a “listed” impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity. Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant’s severe impairment, he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the Secretary then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform. Under the cases previously discussed, the claimant bears the burden of proof as to the first four steps, while the Secretary must prove the final one.

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

Flowers v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 1999-03-19

A five step sequential test is used to evaluate a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1998). The ALJ must first determine whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1510(a), 404.1520(a). If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the next inquiry is whether the claimant is severely impaired for the period required by the regulations. See 20 C.F.R.§§ 404.1509, 404.1520(c). If the claimant is severely impaired, then the next inquiry is whether the impairment meets or equals one listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart. P, App. 1. If the impairment is not equivalent to a listed impairment, the ALJ must then determine whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to evaluate disability through a five-step sequence: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work.

Demeritt v. SSA · filed 1999-03-26

When determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ is reguired to make the following five inguiries: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the impairment meets or eguals a listed impairment; (4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially, including proceeding from step four to step five when the claimant cannot perform past relevant work.

Berthiaume v. SSA · filed 1999-09-30

When determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ is required to make the following five inquiries: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims, considering substantial gainful activity, severe impairments, listed impairments, past work, and other work.

Dowdy v. Barnhart · filed 2002-07-29

The Commissioner has promulgated a five-step analysis for evaluating disability claims. ... First, the [Commissioner] considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, the [Commissioner] next considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the Regulations. If the claimant has such an impairment, the [Commissioner] will consider him disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience; the [Commissioner] presumes that a claimant who is afflicted with a “listed” impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity. Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant’s severe impairment, he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the [Commissioner] then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform. ... In this case, the ALJ adhered to the regulatory five-step sequential evaluation.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims, ending with consideration of the claimant's capacity to perform other substantial gainful activity.

Russell v. Barnhart, Comm · filed 2003-02-07

The Social Security Regulations establish a "sequential evaluation" for the adjudication of disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2000). If an individual is found "not disabled" at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary.3 Id. at § 404.1520(a). The first inquiry under the sequence is whether a claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful employment. Id. at § 404.1520(b). If the claimant is not, the second inquiry is whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment. Id. at § 404.1520(c). If a severe impairment is present, the third inquiry is whether such impairment meets or equals any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the Administrative Regulations No. 4. Id. at § 404.1520(d). If it does, the claimant is found disabled and awarded benefits. Id. If it does not, the fourth inquiry is whether the claimant’s impairments prevent the performance of past relevant work. Id. at § 404.1520(e). By satisfying inquiry four, the claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability. Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264 (4th Cir. 1981). The burden then shifts to the Commissioner, McLain v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866, 868-69 (4th Cir. 1983), and leads to the fifth and final inquiry: whether the claimant is able to perform other forms of substantial gainful activity, considering the claimant’s remaining physical and mental capacities and the claimant’s age, education and prior work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (2000).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a five-step inquiry addressing substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work.

Smith v. SSA · filed 2003-03-12

When determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ is required to make the following five inquiries: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. See also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ evaluating a disability claim to use a five-step process: assess substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and the ability to perform other work.

Rodriguez v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-11

In evaluating a claim of disability, the ALJ must follow the five-step procedure set out in the regulations governing the administration of Social Security benefits. ... First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. If not, the second step requires the ALJ to consider whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant does suffer such an impairment, then the third step requires the ALJ to determine whether this impairment “meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1” of the regulations. If the claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of those listed, the claimant is presumed to be disabled “without considering the [claimant’s] age, education, and work experience.” If the presumption does not apply, then the fourth step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is able to perform his or her past relevant work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his or her past relevant work, the fifth step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is capable of performing any other work.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps addressing work activity, impairment severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work, with the outcome determined by the answer at each step.

Arsenault v. SSA · filed 2004-05-04

When evaluating whether a claimant is disabled due to a physical or mental impairment, an ALJ's analysis is governed by a five-step seguential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2003). The ALJ is required to consider the following issues when determining if a claimant is disabled: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the impairment prevents or prevented the claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment prevents or prevented the claimant from doing any other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2003). An affirmative answer at one step leads to the next step in the analysis. Id. If the answer to questions (3) or (5) is affirmative, the claimant is disabled. Id. If the answer to any question other than (3) is negative, the claimant is not disabled.

Section 404.1520(a)-(f) requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, including determining at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment.

GREGORY KELLEY, — v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, — · filed 2004-06-17(a)-(f)

In evaluating claims for disability, we conduct a five step sequential evaluation: (1) is the claimant engaging in substantial gainful activity; (2) does the claimant have severe impairment(s); (3) does the'impairment or combination of impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1, Subpart P, 20 C.F.R. Part 404; (4) does the impairment or combination of impairments prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) does the impairment or combination of impairments prevent the claimant from doing any other work which exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f). Here, the ALJ concluded the evaluation at step 2 after discounting Kelley’s complaints and finding that Kelley had no severe impairments. We agree with these findings.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially through work activity, impairment severity, listed impairments, past work, and, if necessary, other work considering vocational factors.

MITTAG v. Barnhart · filed 2004-09-29(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

An ALJ must engage in a five-step 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.

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

Wenk v. Barnhart · filed 2004-11-06

The Commissioner has promulgated a five-step analysis for evaluating disability claims. ... First, ' the [Commissioner] considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, the [Commissioner] next considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the Regulations. If the claimant has such an impairment, the [Commissioner] will consider him disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience; the [Commissioner] presumes that a claimant who is afflicted with a “listed” impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity. Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant’s severe impairment, he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the [Commissioner] then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform. ... The claimant bears the burden of proof as to the first four steps, while the Commissioner bears the burden of proof as to the fifth step. ... In this case, the ALJ adhered to the regulatory five-step sequential evaluation. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ applied the correct legal standard.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential inquiry addressing substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past work, and other work considering vocational factors.

Brown v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-23(b)-(f)

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 he has done in the past, a finding of “not disabled” must be made. ... 5. 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 establishes a five-step sequential process for determining disability, and if a claimant satisfies the first four steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant can perform other substantial gainful activity.

Redfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-04-05

To determine disability, the Commissioner has prescribed the five-step sequential process noted above and set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If the plaintiff has satisfied his burden through the first four steps in the analytical process, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish that the plaintiff possesses the residual functional capacity to perform other substantial gainful activity.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequence covering substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past work, and other work.

Maharajh v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-05(b)-(f)

An ALJ must engage in a five-step 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 he has done in the past, a finding of “not disabled” must be made. ... 5. 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. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability analysis covering substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, residual functional capacity and past work, and other work, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner at step five.

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

The federal regulations set forth a five-step analysis that the Commissioner must follow in determining eligibility for disability insurance benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. ... However, as a fourth step, if the impairment or its equivalent is not listed in Appendix 1, the Commissioner must then consider the applicant’s “residual functional capacity” and the demands of any past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the applicant can still perform work he has done in the past, the applicant will be denied disability benefits. ... Finally, if the applicant is unable to perform any past work, the Commissioner will consider the individual’s “residual functional capacity,” age, education and past work experience in order to determine whether the applicant can perform any alternative employment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). ... If the Commissioner finds that the applicant cannot perform any other work, the applicant is considered disabled and eligible for disability benefits. ... The applicant bears the burden of proof as to the first four steps, while the Commissioner bears the burden of proof on the final step relating to other employment. ... In reviewing the administrative finding, the court must follow this five-step analysis to determine if there was substantial evidence on which the Commissioner based her decision.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a sequential five-step process, including determining severity, considering listed impairments, assessing past relevant work, and considering other work in the national economy.

Thomas v. Barnhart · filed 2007-01-10

In determining whether a person is disabled, the Regulations require the A.L.J. to perform a sequential five-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. In step one, the A.L.J. must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. In step two, the A.L.J. must determine whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment. If the claimant fails to show that his or her impairment is severe, he or she is ineligible for benefits. ... If the claimant’s impairment is severe, the A.L.J. proceeds to step three. In step three, the A.L.J. must compare the medical evidence of the claimant’s impairment with a list of impairments presumed severe enough to preclude any substantial gainful work. ... In step four, the A.L.J. is required to consider whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform his or her past relevant work. ... In step five, the A.L.J. must consider whether the claimant is capable of performing any other available work in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for deciding whether a claimant is disabled: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other available work.

Reeves v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-28

The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999). First, the claimant must show that she has not engaged in substantial gainful activity. Jones, 190 F.3d at 1228. Second, she must prove that she has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. In step three, if her impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, she is automatically found disabled. If it does not, she must move on to step four, where she must prove that she is unable to perform her past relevant work. Finally, if the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner in the fifth step to show that there is other work available in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant is able to perform. Id.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential process, including findings on substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

IATRIDIS v. Astrue · filed 2007-07-06(b), (c), (d), (f), (g)

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations establishing a five-step sequential evaluation process for the ALJ to follow in a disability case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. In the First Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If not, in the Second Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments significantly limiting him from performing basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If so, in the Third Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals the requirements of the Listing of Impairments (“Listing”), 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If not, in the Fourth Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has sufficient residual functional capacity despite the impairment or various limitations to perform his past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If not, in Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequence, including consideration of residual functional capacity at steps four and five, and the analysis ends when a step is dispositive.

Sullenger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-11-28(a)(4)

The Commissioner’s regulations require an ALJ to engage in a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether an individual is disabled: (1) If a claimant is performing substantial gainful activity, she is not disabled. 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). (2) If a claimant does not suffer from a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement, she is not disabled. 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). (3) If a claimant has an impairment that meets or equals one of the conditions in the Listings of Impairments and meets the duration requirement, she is disabled. 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). (4) If the ALJ determines, after considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, that the claimant can still perform his past relevant work, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). (5) If the ALJ determines, after considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, that the claimant can perform other work, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). Conversely, if the ALJ determines that the claimant cannot perform other work, then the claimant is disabled. Id. If the ALJ finds any step dispositive, the review terminates.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability inquiry, requiring the claimant to prove steps one through four before the burden shifts at step five to the Commissioner to assess other work in the national economy.

Quintanilla v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-27(a)(4), (a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

The Social Security Administration uses a five-step sequential process to determine if an individual suffers from a disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. A disability finding at any point in the five-step process is conclusive and ends the analysis. ... A claimant must prove that (1) he is not presently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) he suffers from an impairment or impairments that are severe; and that either (3) the impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in the appendix to the regulations; or (4) due to claimant’s RFC, the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); ... Pursuant to the fourth step, if necessary, a claimant who is unable to show that his impairment meets one of the listed impairments must show that he is unable to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... If the claimant makes the required step four showing, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to determine, based on the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, whether the claimant can make an adjustment to other jobs present in the national economy in significant numbers. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If he cannot make such an adjustment, the claimant is disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine disability through a sequential five-step analysis covering substantial gainful activity, impairment severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Rohrbaugh v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-05

In determining whether a person is disabled, the Regulations require the A.L.J. to perform a sequential five-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. In step one, the A.L.J. must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. ... In step two, the A.L.J. must determine whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment. ... If the claimant’s impairment is severe, the A.L.J. proceeds to step three. ... In step four, the A.L.J. is required to consider whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform his or her past relevant work. ... In step five, the A.L.J. must consider whether the claimant is capable of performing any other available work in the national economy.