20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps, including assessment of substantial gainful activity, severity, the Listings, residual functional capacity for past work, and other work in the national economy.

DE LOPEZ v. Astrue · filed 2009-02-03(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 her 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. Part 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 her past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If not, in Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

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

Pruitt v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-14

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. ... Under step two of the sequential evaluation, the A.L.J. is required, in the first instance, to evaluate the severity of Plaintiffs mental impairments.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to decide disability claims through a five-step sequential process, stopping when disability or non-disability is established and shifting the burden to the Commissioner at step five.

Jackson v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-23(a)(4)

To determine disability, the Commissioner uses a five-step sequential analysis. ... If a finding of disability or non-disability can be made at any point in the sequential process, the Commissioner will not review the claim further. ... At step one, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is engaged in any substantial gainful activity. ... If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, step two requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment or a combination of impairments that is severe. ... When a claimant’s impairment or its equivalent matches an impairment in the listing, the claimant is presumed disabled. ... At step four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant retains the RFC to perform his past relevant work. ... If the claimant is unable to return to his past relevant work, step five requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant’s impairments preclude him from adjusting to any other available work. ... At this last step, the burden is on the Commissioner to show that the claimant is capable of performing other available work before denying disability benefits.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially: substantial gainful activity is considered first, followed by whether the claimant has a severe impairment; failure at either step ends the inquiry with a finding of not disabled.

YTTRIE v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-26(b), (c)

At Step One, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). ... If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, he or she is found not disabled, regardless of medical condition, age, education, or work experience, and the inquiry ends; if not, the inquiry proceeds to Step Two. ... Step Two requires a determination whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment. ... A severe impairment is one which significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). The claimant’s age, education, and work experience are not considered in making a Step Two severity determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant suffers a severe impairment, then the inquiry moves on to Step Three; if not, then the claimant is found to be not disabled, and the inquiry ends. ... In performing the Step Two analysis in this case, the ALJ noted that on or before the onset date, Claimant had the following impairments: degenerative disease of the lumber spine, complex regional pain syndrome, and depression/anxiety. (Tr. 15.) Because these medically determinable conditions significantly limited Claimant’s ability to perform basic work activity, the ALJ recognized these impairments as “severe impairments” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Neither party disputes this determination. Thus, the ALJ’s Step Two determination is affirmed.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step process for deciding disability, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and, if not, whether work exists in the national economy.

Loveland v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-25

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations, found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, establishing a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine disability. The Commissioner begins by deciding whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. If so, benefits are denied. If not, the Commissioner decides whether the claimant has a "severe" impairment or combination of impairments. A severe impairment is one which significantly limits a person's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment that meets the duration requirement, the claim is denied. If the impairment or combination of impairments is severe and meets the duration requirement, the Commissioner determines at step three whether the claimant's impairment meets or is equal to one of the deemed-disabling impairments listed in the Commissioner's regulations. If not, the Commissioner asks at step four whether the claimant has the RFC to perform her past relevant work. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If she cannot perform her past relevant work, the burden of proof shifts at step five to the Commissioner to demonstrate that the claimant retains the RFC to perform work that is available in the national economy and that is consistent with the claimant's vocational factors.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including whether the claimant has a severe impairment and whether the claimant can perform past or other work.

Burgin vs Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-03-30

To obtain Social Security disability benefits, a claimant must show: (1) he is not performing substantial gainful activity; (2) he has a severe impairment; (3) the impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in the regulations; or (4) he cannot return to past work; and (5) he cannot perform other work based on his age, education, and experience. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and adjustment to other work.

Courter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-05-07(a)(4)

Corresponding regulations outline a five-step sequential process to determine whether an individual qualifies as disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. That process provides: First, the claimant must demonstrate that he has not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the period of disability. Second, the claimant must show that he suffers from a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment. Third, if the claimant shows that his impairment meets or medically equals one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, he is deemed disabled. Fourth, the ALJ determines whether, based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity, the claimant can perform his past relevant work, in which case the claimant is not disabled. Fifth, the ALJ determines whether, based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity, as well as his age, education, and work experience, the claimant can make an adjustment to other work, in which case the claimant is not disabled.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the SSA bearing it at step five.

Dubois v. Astrue · filed 2012-06-20(a)(4)

A five-step process is used to evaluate an application for social security benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The claimant bears the burden, through the first four steps, of proving that he is disabled, i.e., that (1) he is not engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) he has a severe impairment; (3) the impairment meets or equals a specific impairment listed in the Social Security regulations; and (4) the impairment prevents or prevented him from performing past relevant work. Id.; see Freeman v . Barnhart, 274 F.3d 606, 608 (1st Cir. 2001). At the fifth step, the SSA bears the burden of showing that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform other work that may exist in the national economy. Freeman, 274 F.3d at 608; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). “[A]ll five steps are not applied to every applicant, as the determination may be concluded at any step along the process.” Freeman, 274 F.3d at 608.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) establishes a five-step disability evaluation, placing the burden on the claimant through the first four steps and on the SSA at the fifth step to show capacity for other work in the national economy.

Morris v. SSA · filed 2012-09-28(a)(4), (a)(4)(v)

A five-step process is used to evaluate an application for social security benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The claimant bears the burden, through the first four steps, of proving that he is disabled, i.e., that (1) he is not engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) he has a severe impairment; (3) the impairment meets or equals a specific impairment listed in the Social Security regulations; and (4) the impairment prevents or prevented him from performing past relevant work. Id.; see Freeman v . Barnhart, 274 F.3d 606, 608 (1st Cir. 2001). At the fifth step, the SSA bears the burden of showing that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform other work that may exist in the national economy. Freeman, 274 F.3d at 608; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). “[A]ll five steps are not applied to every applicant, as the determination may be concluded at any step along the process.” Freeman, 274 F.3d at 608.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through five sequential inquiries, from substantial gainful activity through the claimant’s ability to perform other work.

Gould v. SSA · filed 2012-10-31

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

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through sequential steps, including whether the claimant has a severe impairment.

Hinton v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-11(c)

The Commissioner has established a five-step process for determining whether a person is disabled. ... First, the claimant cannot be presently engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” ... Second, the claimant must have a severe impairment. ... At the third step in the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment, or combination of impairments, which meets or equals one of the impairments listed in the regulations and whether such impairment meets the twelve-month durational requirement. ... At step four, the ALJ determines whether claimant can return to her past relevant work, “reviewing] [the claimant’s] [RFC] and the physical and mental demands of the work [claimant has] done in the past.” ... If the ALJ holds at step four of the process that a claimant cannot return to past relevant work, the burden shifts at step five to the Commissioner to establish that the claimant maintains the RFC to perform a significant number of jobs within the national economy. ... For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ did not err in not finding Plaintiffs depression to be a severe impairment.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) makes the first step of the disability analysis whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Torres v. Colvin · filed 2013-04-10(a)(4)(i)

The SSA has promulgated a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v). This analysis requires a hearing officer to determine (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment; (3) whether the impairment meets or medically equals an impairment listed under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and meets the duration requirement; (4) whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other work considering the claimant’s age, education, and work experience.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence addressing work activity, impairment severity, listed impairments, residual functional capacity and past work, and adjustment to other work.

Blankenship v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2015-08-26(a)(4)

The Commissioner conducts a five-step sequential analysis to determine if a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act: (i) At the first step, we consider your work activity, if any. If you are doing substantial gainful activity, we will find that you are not disabled. (ii) At the second step, we consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). If you do not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement in § 404.1509, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are not disabled. (iii) At 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. (iv) At the fourth step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your past relevant work. If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled. (v) At the fifth and last step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your age, education, and work experience to see if you can make an adjustment to other work. If you can make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are not disabled. If you cannot make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation, ending the inquiry when the claimant is found disabled or not disabled and requiring the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity before step four.

McCleary v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-01(a)(4), (c), (d)-(e)

The Commissioner uses a five-step evaluation process to determine if a person is eligible for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; accord Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428. If the Commissioner finds that' a Plaintiff is disabled or not disabled at any point in the sequence, review does not proceed. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The Commissioner must sequentially determine: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the claimant’s impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant’s impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Before moving on to step four in this process, the ALJ must also determine Plaintiffs residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims, ending with whether the claimant can perform other substantial gainful activity considering the claimant’s remaining capacities and vocational factors.

Piziak v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-22

The Social Security Regulations establish a “sequential evaluation” for the adjudication of disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If an individual is found “not disabled” at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary. Id. § 404.1520(a). The first inquiry under the sequence is whether a claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful employment. Id. § 404.1520(b). If the claimant is not, the second inquiry is whether claimant suffers from a severe impairment. Id. § 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. § 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. § 404.1520(f). 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 claimant’s remaining physical and mental capacities and claimant’s age, education and prior work experience. Id. § 404.1520(g). The Commissioner must show two things: (1) that the claimant, considering claimant’s age, education, work experience, skills and physical shortcomings, has the capacity to perform an alternative job, and (2) that this specific job exists in the national economy. McLamore v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 572, 574 (4th Cir. 1976).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential process, beginning by determining whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Mauro v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-18(a)(4)

■ Regulations issued pursuant to the Social Security Act set forth a five-step process that the Commissioner must use in evaluating a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Burgess, 537 F.3d at 120 (describing the five-step process). First, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in any “substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(I). Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner must decide if the claimant has a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment,” id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), which is an impairment or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” id § 404.1520(c). Third, if the claimant’s impairment is severe and is listed in 20 C.F.R, Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, or is equivalent to one of the listed impairments, the claimant must be found disabled regardless of his age, education, or work experience. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment is not listed and is not equal to one of the listed impairments, the Commissioner must review the claimant’s RFC to determine if the claimant is able to do work he or she has done in the past, i.e., “past relevant work,” Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is able to do such work, he or she is not disabled. Id. Finally, if the claimant is unable to-perform past relevant work, the Commissioner must decide if the claimant’s RFC permits the claimant to do other work. Id § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If the claimant cannot perform other work, he or she will be deemed disabled. Id.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential evaluation for disability claims: the adjudicator proceeds through the listed inquiries in order, and a finding of not disabled at any step ends further inquiry.

Francis v. Berryhill · filed 2017-11-08

The Social Security Regulations establish a “sequential evaluation” for the adjudication of disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If an individual is found “not disabled” at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary. Id. § 404.1520(a). The first inquiry under the sequence is whether a claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful employment. Id. § 404.1520(b). If the claimant is not, the second inquiry is whether claimant suffers from a severe impairment. Id. § 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. § 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. § 404.1520(f). 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 claimant’s remaining physical and mental capacities and claimant’s age, education and prior work experience. Id. § 404.1520(g).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through a five-step process, from substantial gainful activity through the ability to perform other work.

Perozzi v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-05(a)(4)

Regulations issued pursuant to the Social Security Act set forth a five-step process that the Commissioner must use in evaluating a disability claim. ... First, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in any "substantial gainful activity." ... Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner must decide if the claimant has a "severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment," ... Third, if the claimant's impairment is severe and is listed in 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1, or is equivalent to one of the listed impairments, the claimant must be found disabled regardless of his age, education, or work experience. ... Fourth, if the claimant's impairment is not listed and is not equal to one of the listed impairments, the Commissioner must review the claimant's RFC to determine if the claimant is able to do work he or she has done in the past, i.e., "past relevant work." ... Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, the Commissioner must decide if the claimant's RFC, in addition to his or her age, education, and work experience, permits the claimant to do other work.

Section 404.1520(a) requires the Commissioner to evaluate an adult disability claim through a five-step sequential process, including whether the claimant is working, has a severe impairment, meets a listed impairment, can perform past work, or can perform other work in the national economy.

Bryan v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-05-25(a)

To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate adult disability claims through a five-step sequential process, considering age, education, and work experience only if the analysis reaches the final stage.

Litchford v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2019-03-07(a)

To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers the plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final stage of this analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to evaluate a disability claim through a five-step sequence, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner bearing the burden at the final step of showing that other work exists.

Urena v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-05-15(a)(4)

Regulations issued pursuant to the Social Security Act set forth a five-step process that the Commissioner must use in evaluating a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Burgess, 537 F.3d at 120 (describing the five-step process). First, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in any “substantial gainful activity.” ... Third, if the claimant’s impairment is severe and is listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, or is equivalent to one of the listed impairments, the claimant must be found disabled regardless of his age, education, or work experience. ... Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, the Commissioner must decide if the claimant’s RFC permits the claimant to do other work. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If the claimant cannot perform other work, he or she will be deemed disabled. Id. The claimant bears the burden of proof on all steps except the final one — that is, proving that there is other work the claimant can perform.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for deciding whether a claimant is disabled, including consideration of work activity, severe impairments, residual functional capacity, past work, and other work.

Dawn Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-08-06(a)

Under the framework for Social Security disability determinations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f), Wilson has met the first three steps of the five-step sequential analysis: she met insured status requirements through March 31, 2011, she has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date in March 2004, and she had the severe impairments of fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel syndrome, and facet arthropathy through the date last insured, though her impairments are not so severe that we end the analysis at step three. See id. ... At step four, Wilson does not have the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work as a mail handler, but we consider whether her residual functional capacity, age, education, and past experience permit her to do other work. See id. § 404.1520(g). ... Finally, at step five, “the Commissioner must make a finding ‘supported by substantial evidence that [the claimant] has the vocational qualifications to perform specific jobs’” which may be shown through the testimony of a vocational witness in response to a hypothetical question which accurately portrays the claimant’s “‘individual physical and mental impairments.’”

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential evaluation process for disability claims, and benefits are available only when the claimant cannot perform other work.

Owens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-26(a), (g)

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

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, from current substantial gainful activity through the claimant’s ability to perform other work.

Sorensen v. Saul · filed 2019-08-27(a)(4)

In determining whether a claimant qualifies as disabled within the meaning of the Act, the Social Security Administration employs a five-part sequential evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The analysis evaluates whether: (1) The claimant presently engages in substantial gainful activity; (2) The claimant has a medically severe physical or mental impairment or impairments; (3) The impairment is equivalent to one of the impairments listed in the appendix of the relevant disability regulation which preclude substantial gainful activity; (4) The impairment prevents the claimant from performing his or her past work; and (5) The claimant possesses a residual functional capacity to perform other work in the national economy considering his or her age, education, and work experience. See id.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential process, addressing substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-10(a)(4)

Regulations issued pursuant to the Act set forth a five-step process that the Commissioner must use in evaluating a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); see also Burgess, 537 F.3d at 120 (describing the five-step process). First, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in any “substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner must decide if the claimant has a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii), which is an impairment or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Third, if the claimant’s impairment is severe and is listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, or is equivalent to one of the listed impairments, the claimant must be found disabled regardless of his age, education, or work experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d). Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment is not listed and is not equal to one of the listed impairments, the Commissioner must review the claimant’s RFC to determine if the claimant is able to do work he or she has done in the past, i.e., “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is able to do such work, he or she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, the Commissioner must decide if the claimant’s RFC, in addition to his or her age, education, and work experience, permits the claimant to do other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant cannot perform other work, he or she will be deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

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

McCall v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-10(a)(4)

The Commissioner determines whether a claimant is disabled by way of a five-stage process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 1990). First, the claimant must demonstrate that he is not currently engaged in “substantial gainful activity” at the time he seeks disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b) and 416.920(b). Second, the claimant must show that he suffers from a medically determinable “severe impairment” or combination of impairments in order to warrant a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). A “severe impairment” is one that “significantly limits ... physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Abbott, 905 F.2d at 923. Third, if the claimant is not performing substantial gainful activity, has a severe impairment (or combination of impairments) th at is expected to last for at least twelve months, and the impairment(s) meets a listed impairment, the claimant is presumed to be disabled regardless of age, education or work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d). Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment(s) does not prevent him from doing past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e)-(f) and 416.920(e)-(f). For the fifth and final step, even if the claimant’s impairment(s) does prevent him from doing past relevant work, if other work exists in the national economy that the claimant can perform, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g), 404.1560(c).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through five sequential steps, including determining whether the claimant has substantial gainful activity, a severe impairment, a listed or equivalent impairment, the capacity for past relevant work, and the capacity for other work.

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

Regulations issued pursuant to the Act set forth a five-step process that the Commissioner must use in evaluating a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); see also Burgess, 537 F.3d at 120 (describing the five-step process). First, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in any “substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(I), 416.920(a)(4)(I). Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner must decide if the claimant has a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii), which is an impairment or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Third, if the claimant’s impairment is severe and is listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, or is equivalent to one of the listed impairments, the claimant must be found disabled regardless of his or her age, education, or work experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d). Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment is not listed and is not equal to one of the listed impairments, the Commissioner must review the claimant’s RFC to determine if the claimant is able to do work he or she has done in the past, i.e., “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is able to do such work, he or she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, the Commissioner must decide if the claimant’s RFC, in addition to his or her age, education, and work experience, permits the claimant to do other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant cannot perform other work, he or she will be deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequence, including assessment of severe impairments, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work.

Ramos v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-19(a)(4)

Regulations issued pursuant to the Act set forth a five-step process that the Commissioner must use in evaluating a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); see also Burgess, 537 F.3d at 120 (describing the five-step process). First, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in any “substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner must decide if the claimant has a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii), which is an impairment or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Third, if the claimant’s impairment is severe and is listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, or is equivalent to one of the listed impairments, the claimant must be found disabled regardless of his or her age, education, or work experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d). Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment is not listed and is not equal to one of the listed impairments, the Commissioner must review the claimant’s RFC to determine if the claimant is able to do work he or she has done in the past, i.e., “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is able to do such work, he or she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, the Commissioner must decide if the claimant’s RFC, in addition to his or her age, education, and work experience, permits the claimant to do other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant cannot perform other work, he or she will be deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to decide disability through a five-step sequence, with the claimant bearing the burden through steps one through four and the Commissioner at step five.

ANDERSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-25

The Commissioner has provided the ALJ with a five-step sequential analysis to use when evaluating the disabled status of each claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if the claimant has a severe impairment, whether it meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1; (4) if the impairment does not satisfy one of the impairment listings, whether the claimant’s impairments prevent her from performing her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is incapable of performing her past relevant work, whether she can perform any other work which exists in the national economy, in light of her age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The claimant carries the initial burden of demonstrating by medical evidence that she is unable to return to her previous employment (steps 1-4). Dobrowolsky, 606 F.2d at 406. Once the claimant meets this burden, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can engage in alternative substantial gainful activity (step 5). Id.

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

Reynolds v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(a)(4)(i)-(v)

In evaluating the evidence presented at an administrative hearing, the ALJ must follow a sequential process in determining whether a person is disabled in general (see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920) – or continues to be disabled (see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594, 416.994) – within the meaning of the Social Security Act. ... The first step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”). ... If the claimant has engaged in SGA, disability benefits are denied, regardless of how severe her physical/mental impairments are and regardless of her age, education, and work experience. ... The second step requires a determination of whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, that is severe and meets the duration requirement. ... The third step requires the ALJ to determine the medical severity of any impairments; that is, whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. ... The fourth step of the sequential process requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is sufficient for the claimant to perform past relevant work. ... In the fifth and final step, if it has been established that a claimant can no longer perform past relevant work because of her impairments, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant retains the ability to do alternate work and to demonstrate that such alternate work exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims, with benefits denied when a claimant is found able to perform available work at a step.

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(a)(4)

Claims for disability benefits are evaluated according to a five-step sequential process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24–25 (2003); Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 804 (1999); Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 140–42. If it is determined that the plaintiff is not disabled at any step in the evaluation process, then the analysis will not proceed to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). At step one, it is determined whether the plaintiff is working and thus engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If he is, then disability benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Step two requires the ALJ to determine whether the plaintiff has “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment” or severe combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... At this final step, the ALJ evaluates whether the plaintiff’s RFC, combined with his age, education, and work experience, allows him to perform any other work that is available in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If the ALJ determines that there is work in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform, then disability benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

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

Carty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-12(a), (g)

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

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential process to decide disability, including finding a claimant disabled at step three when the claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

Michael D. v. Saul · filed 2020-03-02(d)

The ALJ must follow five steps in evaluating a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. First, if a claimant is working at a substantial gainful activity, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, if a claimant does not have any impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limit physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, then the claimant does not have a severe impairment and is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Third, if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Appendix 1, the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if a claimant’s impairments do not prevent doing past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e)-(f). Fifth, if a claimant’s impairments (considering RFC, age, education and past work) prevent doing other work that exists in the local or national economy, a finding of disabled is warranted. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). Significantly, the claimant bears the burden of proof at Steps One through Four, but the Commissioner bears the burden at Step Five.

Section 404.1520(a) requires the ALJ to determine disability through a five-step sequential process, ending at a step when the claimant is found disabled or not disabled.

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-01(a)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled under the Act, the ALJ engages in a five-step sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The burden of proof is on the claimant for the first four steps but shifts to the Commissioner at the fifth. Molina, 674 F.3d at 1110. At step one, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental impairment. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. At step three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Part 404. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is disabled. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. Id. At step four, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC and determines whether the claimant is capable of performing past relevant work. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final step and determines whether the claimant can perform any other work in the national economy based on the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not disabled. Id. If not, the claimant is disabled. Id.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential five-step process, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or other work existing in significant numbers.

(SS) Ronquillo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-17(a)(4)

To achieve uniform decisions, the Commissioner established a sequential five-step process for evaluating a claimant’s alleged disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The process requires the ALJ to determine whether Plaintiff (1) is engaged substantial gainful activity, (2) had medically determinable severe impairments (3) that met or equaled one of the listed impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether Plaintiff (4) had the residual functional capacity to perform to past relevant work or (5) the ability to perform other work existing in significant numbers at the state and national level.1 Id.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) establishes a five-step disability framework: the claimant must satisfy Steps One through Three, and if she cannot return to past relevant work at Step Four, the Commissioner must show at Step Five that she can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Torrez v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-14(a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(v)

A five-step regulatory framework is used to determine whether an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142 (1987) (describing the five-step process). Steps One through Three require the claimant to prove: (1) she is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) she suffers from a severe impairment; and (3) her condition meets or equals a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(iii). If the claimant does not suffer from a listed impairment or its equivalent, the Commissioner’s analysis proceeds to Steps Four and Five. Step Four requires the Commissioner to consider whether the claimant retains the RFC to perform past relevant work (PRW). Id. at § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). The claimant bears the burden of demonstrating she is no longer able to return to her PRW. Pate-Fires, 564 F.3d at 942. If the Commissioner determines the claimant cannot return to her PRW, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at Step Five to show the claimant retains the RFC to perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

The sequential evaluation requires step-one screening for substantial gainful activity and, if the evaluation continues, consideration of past relevant work and adjustment to other work; an erroneous step-one finding is harmless when the ALJ proceeds through the remaining steps.

Mackey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-01(a)(4)(i), (b), (a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

At step one of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity (SGA) during his alleged period of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, he is not disabled for those periods of SGA. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). ... The error was harmless because the ALJ continued with the sequential evaluation process, regardless of the months when plaintiff was gainfully self-employed. Tr. 16. When an ALJ proceeds to the next step of the sequential evaluation process, any error at that step is harmless in the ALJ’s ultimate nondisability finding. Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1049 (9th Cir. 2017); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2008). ... At step four in the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ determines whether a claimant can still perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If not, at step five, the ALJ must then consider whether the claimant can adjust to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step process to determine whether a claimant is disabled, including assessing work capacity and whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.

Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-23

Generally, the Commissioner must employ a five-step evaluation process to decide whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140–42 (1987); Goodermote v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 690 F.2d 5, 6–7 (1st Cir. 1982). In step one, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant is currently engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” If so, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). At step two, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If not, the disability claim is denied. At step three, the Commissioner must decide whether the claimant’s impairment is equivalent to a specific list of impairments contained in the regulations’ Appendix 1, which the Commissioner acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. If the claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, he is conclusively presumed to be disabled. If not, the evaluation proceeds to the fourth step, through which the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC and determines whether the impairments prevent the claimant from doing the work he has performed in the past. An individual’s RFC is his ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from his impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) and 404.1545(a)(1). If the claimant is able to perform his previous work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If he cannot perform this work, the fifth and final step asks whether the claimant is able to perform other work available in the national economy in view of his RFC, as well as age, education, and work experience. If the claimant cannot, then he is entitled to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520 requires the sequential evaluation of disability claims, including determining at step four whether a claimant can perform past relevant work and at step five whether the claimant can perform other substantial gainful activity available in significant numbers.

Carter v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-30(f), (g)

An ALJ must ascertain at step four of the sequential evaluation whether the claimant’s impairments prevent the performance of past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If so, the claimant has established a prima facie case of disability, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate, in the fifth and final step of the process, that the claimant is able to perform other forms of substantial gainful activity, given the claimant’s remaining physical and mental capacities, age, education, and prior work experiences. Id. § 404.1520(g); see also McLain v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866, 868-69 (4th Cir. 1983).

Section 404.1520 requires the Social Security Administration to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential process, considering substantial gainful activity, severe impairments, listed impairments, past work, and other work.

Kimmerly v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2022-03-30

In considering an application for supplemental security income or for disability benefits, the Social Security Agency is guided by the following sequential benefits analysis: at Step 1, the Commissioner asks if the claimant is still performing substantial gainful activity; at Step 2, the Commissioner determines if one or more of the claimant’s impairments are “severe;” at Step 3, the Commissioner analyzes whether the claimant’s impairments, singly or in combination, meet or equal a Listing in the Listing of Impairments; at Step 4, the Commissioner determines whether or not the claimant can still perform his or her past relevant work; and finally, at Step 5, if it is established that claimant can no longer perform his or her past relevant work, the burden of proof shifts to the agency to determine whether a significant number of other jobs which the claimant can perform exist in the national economy. See Combs v. Com’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 643 (6th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520, 416.920.

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

Ortiz-Rivera v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-03(a)(4)

The ALJ reached this conclusion after proceeding through the five-step sequential analysis required by the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... At step one of the five-step analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If a claimant is engaging in SGA, the claimant is not disabled, regardless of age, education, or work experience. ... At step three, the ALJ must determine whether an impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the medical equivalent of an impairment listed in the version of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 that was in effect on the date of the ALJ’s decision. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1525, 404.1526. ... Having assessed a claimant’s RFC, step four requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has the RFC to perform the requirements of his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... At step five of the sequential analysis process, the ALJ considers the claimant’s age, education, and work experience to see if a claimant can make the adjustment to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... If a claimant can adjust to other work, he or she will not be considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a sequential process, beginning with substantial gainful activity and proceeding through the remaining prescribed steps.

Pollinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-03

To arrive at a determination as to disability, the ALJ must undertake the sequential evaluation embodied in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. This process requires that the ALJ first determine whether the claimant is presently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If so, a finding of “no disability” is made.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, and a step-two error may be harmless when the ALJ considers the non-severe impairment at the later steps.

Capalaces v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-08(a)

In making this determination at the administrative level, the ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a). Under this process, the ALJ must sequentially determine: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the claimant is able to do his or her past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is able to do any other work, considering his or her age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4). ... But our Step 2 inquiry does not end there. Even if we find that the ALJ erred in finding Capalaces’ mental impairments not severe at Step 2, we may still find that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s opinion if the ALJ thoroughly considered the non-severe impairments at all subsequent steps in the disability analysis process. See McClease at *10, Salles at 145, n. 2 (3d Cir. 2007); Stouchko at *10. ... Moreover, even if the ALJ erred in determining that Capalaces’ psychological impairments were not severe, the error was harmless because the ALJ clearly and thoroughly considered Capalaces’ psychological impairments at each subsequent step in his analysis.

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

Hess v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-07

An ALJ is required to follow a five-step sequential analysis to make a disability determination: 1. Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is not disabled. 2. Does the claimant have a medically determinable impairment, or a combination of impairments, that is "severe"? If not, the claimant is not disabled. 3. Does the claimant’s impairment meet or equal one of the listed impairments and meet the duration requirement? If so, the claimant is disabled. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the next step. 4. What is the claimant’s residual functional capacity and can the claimant perform past relevant work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the next step. 5. Can the claimant do any other work considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see Jordan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 548 F.3d 417, 422 (6th Cir. 2008).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to evaluate disability through a sequential five-step process, including assessing substantial gainful activity, severe impairments, listed impairments, residual functional capacity and past work, and the availability of other work.

Benson v. O'Malley · filed 2025-06-20

In evaluating the evidence presented at an administrative hearing, the ALJ must follow a sequential process in determining whether a person is disabled in general (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920) – or continues to be disabled (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594, 416.994) – within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The first step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). ... 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). ... The third step requires the ALJ to determine the medical severity of any impairments; that is, whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... The fourth step of the evaluation process requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s RFC is sufficient for the claimant to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). ... In the fifth and final step, if it has been established that a claimant can no longer perform past relevant work because of her impairments, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant retains the ability to do alternate work and to demonstrate that such alternate work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); see also Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1011 (9th Cir. 2014).

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential process for deciding disability claims, and further inquiry ends when a claimant is found disabled at an earlier step.

Hagins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-26(a)

The Social Security Administration has established a standardized “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence: 1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; 2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; 3) whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1; and 4) whether a claimant can perform her past relevant work based on her RFC. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if a claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to complete the five-step disability inquiry before separately evaluating whether alcoholism materially contributes to disability.

Bustamante v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2001-08-27(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

Here, the ALJ erred by concluding at step two that Bustamante’s “behavioral and emotional conditions” were “the product and consequence of his alcohol abuse and not an independently severe or disabling impairment.” This was improper. The ALJ should have proceeded with the five-step inquiry without attempting to determine the impact of Bustamante’s alcoholism on his other mental impairments. If, and only if, the ALJ found that Busta-mante was disabled under the five-step inquiry, should the ALJ have evaluated whether Bustamante would still be disabled if he stopped using alcohol.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated in five sequential steps, allows the ALJ to stop when the claimant fails a step, and requires a finding of disability when the claimant meets a listed impairment at step three.

Vicki Banks v. Apfel · filed 2001-07-30(a)-(f), (d)

Under the familiar five-part analysis utilized in social security disability cases, the ALJ must determine, sequentially, the following: 1) whether the claimant is employed; 2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; 3) whether the impairment meets a listed impairment; 4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past work; and 5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f) (1996). If the claimant fails at any step, the ALJ need not continue. ... If the ALJ finds that the claimant meets a listed impairment at step three, the ALJ must make a finding of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, including severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Vega v. Callahan · filed 1997-09-11(c) (d) (e) (f)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining if a person is eligible for either DIB or SSI benefits due to a disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920; ... A severe impairment is one “which significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d). If the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e). ... If the claimant is unable to perform work performed in the past, the Commissioner proceeds to the fifth and final step to determine if the claimant can perform other work in the national economy in light of his or her age, education, and work experience. ... The claimant is entitled to disability benefits only if he or she is not able to perform other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f).

When sequential evaluation ends at step two because an impairment is found non-severe, the reviewing court may assume the claimant also would not have met the listing or been unable to return to past work, avoiding a remand solely to complete the remaining steps.

Scruggs v. Schweiker · filed 1982-04-28(c)

Prior to any revision, this Court shall adopt the following rule to be applicable to those claims presented for review where the sequence terminated at step (2). The Court will assume that had the sequential consideration continued, the finder of fact would have found that the impairments were neither listed nor prevented the individual from returning to previous work. This rule will prevent needless and time consuming remands just to allow the Secretary to continue the sequence beyond step (2), and will afford the Court a record which contains the minimum findings necessary for a review on the statutory requirements.

Section 404.1520 uses a sequential evaluation in which the disability inquiry may end with a finding of no disability when the claimant lacks a severe impairment, while later steps assess past and other work using vocational factors.

Brown v. Harris · filed 1982-08-31

In McCoy, the Eighth Circuit summarized the steps outlined in the regulation for the use of the grids. ... In his decision, the ALJ outlined those same steps. He specifically determined that plaintiff’s impairments were slight. Because a severe impairment was not found, the ALJ could have completed his analysis at that point. Under McCoy it was not necessary for him to also apply the grid regulations in order to deny benefits. ... Because the Court has found that there was substantial evidence to support each of the factors used in applying the grid, the determination under the regulation that plaintiff is not disabled is conclusive.

Section 404.1520(b) requires the ALJ to determine at the first stage of the sequential disability evaluation whether the claimant is working; a claimant found to be working is considered not disabled.

Hernandez v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-05-13(b)

Under the Secretary’s systemized procedure for sequentially evaluating a disability claim, the AU first must determine whether the claimant is working, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b) (1982), or whether the claimant does not have a severe impairment, § 404.1520(c). In either case, the claimant is considered not disabled. If, however, an individual’s impairment meets the durational requirement of at least twelve months and is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations or is determined to be the medical equivalent of a listed impairment, the claimant is considered disabled. § 404.-1520(d). Section 404.1526(a) comes into play here by indicating how “medical equivalence” is determined. If a finding of disability vel non cannot be determined by these three steps, but the claimant does have a severe impairment, the ALJ then must evaluate the claimant’s “residual functional capacity,” age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can do other work. § 404.1520(e), (f).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially, and a claimant who establishes a severe impairment is entitled to further inquiry into past and other work.

Lucena v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1983-09-26

In evaluating a claim under the Act, the Secretary applies sequentially a series of tests embodied in the regulations, as follows: ... 2. Does the claimant have a severe impairment? “Severe impairment” means an impairment which significantly limits his physical or mental capacity to perform basic work-related functions. If he does not have an impairment of at least this degree of severity, he is not disabled. ... 4. Does the claimant’s impairment prevent him from performing work of the sort he has done in the past? ... *1325. Does the claimant’s impairment prevent him from performing other work of the sort found in the economy? If so, he is disabled; if not, he is not disabled. 20 CFR § 404.1520 (1982). ... In a case such as this, where the medical evidence alone establishes that Plaintiff is unable to perform his past work, we find that Plaintiff has established prima-facie the existence of a severe impairment which warrants further inquiry by the Secretary.

The regulation requires disability claims to be evaluated through sequential steps, and failure to meet or equal the Listings does not permit an assumption of residual functional capacity; residual functional capacity must be assessed separately at later steps.

Mental Health Ass'n of Minn. v. Schweiker · filed 1982-12-22(a), (d)

The regulations require that a five-part sequential evaluation process be used to evaluate disability claims. ... At step three, an individual whose impairment meets or equals the severity level described in the Listing of Impairments is presumed disabled on the basis of that severity level alone. ... The fourth step of the process involves two sub-steps: (1) a determination of the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC), and (2) a determination whether the claimant has sufficient RFC to return to the physical or mental demands of his past relevant work. ... If the individual cannot do his past work the fifth step of the process is employed. Five factors are assessed in the fifth step: the individual’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, and the demands of other jobs in the national economy. ... The policy identified in the Findings of Fact violates the Social Security Act, the implementing regulations thereunder, the requirements of case law, and is arbitrary, capricious, irrational, and an abuse of discretion. ... Defendant and his agents are by this order enjoined from drawing any conclusion regarding the extent of residual functional capacity (RFC) from the fact that the individual fails to meet or equal the Appendix Listing § 12.00.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to evaluate disability through a sequential process: severe impairment, listed impairment, past work, and—if necessary—age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity in determining ability to perform work in the national economy.

Dionne v. Heckler · filed 1984-04-20

Title 20 C.F.R. 404.1520 dictates that once Plaintiff is determined to have a severe impairment, the AU must examine whether or not her impairment falls within those listed in Appendix 1 and thus qualifies automatically for disability benefits. If Plaintiff’s impairment is not delineated in Appendix 1, the AU must determine next whether Plaintiff’s impairment prevents her from doing any work she has done in the past. If claimant cannot do her past relevant work, or has no past relevant work, the AU will consider the Plaintiff’s age, education, past work experience and residual functional capacity to determine whether there is any work in the national economy that she can do.

Section 404.1520 requires the disability determination to proceed through the applicable sequential steps, including considering whether a claimant with a severe impairment can perform relevant past work.

Chandler v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-11-14

The Administrative Law Judge applied the correct procedure in examining Chandler’s disability claim. After finding that Chandler was not currently employed, and that he had a severe impairment, the ALJ considered whether his impairment prevented him from performing relevant past work.

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential evaluation of disability claims, and its second step requires a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Trafton v. Heckler · filed 1983-12-19(c)

The second sequential test requires that a claimant have a severe impairment, that is, an impairment which “significantly limits [his] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”

Section 404.1520(c) cannot be used to deny benefits based solely on a finding of a non-severe impairment without considering the claimant’s ability to do past work and, if necessary, other work in light of vocational factors.

Smith v. Heckler · filed 1984-06-06(c)

The regulations challenged in this case are subsections (c) of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 which are identical. ... Subsection (c) provides for a finding of not disabled without consideration of inability to do past work or, in view of age, education and work experience, other work if the Secretary considers the impairment to be “non-severe”. ... However, the grid rule cannot be reached because the “non-severe” regulations and rulings short circuit the analysis by a summary conclusion of not disabled without making the specific findings concerning past work and vocational factors that are mandated by the statute. Accordingly, the defendants’ objections that there is no controlling or persuasive authority for invalidating the challenged regulations and rulings are rejected by this court.

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to apply a sequential evaluation process when determining disability after finding that a claimant has a severe impairment.

Holmes v. Heckler · filed 1984-09-26

Should the Secretary determine that plaintiff has a severe impairment, she must proceed with the sequential evaluation set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.-920.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential process for evaluating disability claims, ends review when a claimant is found disabled or not disabled at a step, and requires a not-disabled finding at step two when the impairment is not severe.

Rivera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1985-10-08(a), (c)

Pursuant to the Act, the Secretary established Social Security Administration Regulation No. 4. Said Regulation provides for a set order to evaluate disability (20 C.R.F. § 404.1520(a)). In addition, a claimant’s impairment must meet the 12-month duration requirement before being found disabling. If it is determined that a claimant is or is not disabled at any point in the review, further review is not necessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). In following the set order, the AU concluded that a decision on whether the claimant is disabled cannot be made based on work activity (the first step in the sequence). He did, however, use the second step to determine whether the claimant was disabled. Under this second step (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)) if the impairment is not severe, a finding must be made that the individual is not disabled, regardless of age, education and work experience. To have a severe impairment the impairment or combination of impairments must significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

When the severity step is not properly applied, § 404.1520 requires further evaluation of past work and then other work considering the claimant’s impairments and vocational factors.

Spears v. Heckler · filed 1985-11-08

On remand, the Secretary shall assign the case to another AU, who shall reconsider the application of the severity regulation to plaintiff’s disability claim. Specifically, the Secretary must determine whether plaintiff is capable of returning to her former job as an assembly-line worker. Assuming she determines that plaintiff cannot return to her earlier job, the Secretary must then determine what jobs plaintiff can perform given the combined effect of her impairments, her age, and her educational and vocational background.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation, but a denial at step two cannot rest solely on medical severity without considering vocational factors.

DuBreuil v. Bowen · filed 1986-03-21(c)

It is clear from the above findings that the AU used step two (the “severity threshold test”) of the sequential evaluation process as a basis for his denial of benefits. ... Because of this conflict, this Court and others have ruled the step two severity test invalid. ... Accordingly, we cannot affirm a denial of benefits which is based upon a claimant’s failure to meet the step two severity test. ... The decision of the Secretary denying benefits to the plaintiff, whether it be based upon a step two denial or upon the alternative analysis given by the AU, must be reversed. The plaintiff is entitled to a full-scale evaluation which takes into consideration vocational, as well as medical factors. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim is remanded for further consideration under steps three through five of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and § 416.920.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation: after assessing work activity, impairment severity, and listed impairments, the decisionmaker considers past relevant work and other work to determine disability.

Smalley v. Bowen · filed 1987-04-03

The decision of the Appeals Council was based on the medical-vocational regulations. These regulations provide for a five step sequential evaluation of disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Essentially, if the Secretary determines that the claimant is not working, the claimant is severely impaired, and the medical factors listed in Appendix I of the Social Security regulations are present, the Secretary must make a finding of disability. If only the Appendix I medical factors are lacking, the Secretary must then determine that the claimant cannot return to past relevant work and cannot perform some other type of work in order to make a finding that the claimant is disabled.

Section 404.1520 places the initial burden on the claimant to show a listed impairment or inability to perform past work, then shifts the burden to the Secretary to show available work in the national economy; at the final step, the claimant is disabled when no significant number of jobs can be performed.

Dixon v. Bowen · filed 1988-08-30(d), (e), (f)

Two steps are followed in determining a disability under the Social Security Act. The claimant has the burden of showing she is disabled by demonstrating that she has a listed impairment, 20 CFR § 404.1520(d) (1985), or that she cannot do her previous work. 20 CFR § 404.1520(e). Tom v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1250, 1252 (7th *939Cir.1985). If the claimant meets this burden, then the Secretary has the burden of showing that there is work available in the national economy which the claimant could do. Id. at 1253. The Appeals Council found that from June 19, 1980 until June 7, 1982, Mrs. Dixon was capable of doing her past work. This constituted a finding under 20 CFR § 404.1520(e) that Mrs. Dixon had not made out a prima facie case of a disability. ... AU Walsh found, pursuant to 20 CFR § 404.1520(f), that there were “not a significant number of jobs in the national economy which [Mrs. Dixon] could perform” (tr. 307) during the June 19, 1980 to June 7, 1982 period. We find that substantial evidence supports this conclusion, since both vocational experts testified that if Mrs. Dixon were subject to a severe impairment of her upper extremities, then she would not be able to perform most, if not all, similar jobs available in the economy.

Section 404.1520 requires evaluating whether a claimant's severe impairments prevent him from performing past relevant work as part of the disability determination.

Stankiewicz v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services' · filed 1990-04-10(e)

On the record before us, the appellant clearly made out a case, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, that he had severe physical impairments which prevented him from engaging in his past relevant work prior to September 30, 1981, when his insured status expired.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims, including whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Richard MATULLO, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary · filed 1990-11-26(d) and (e)

The Secretary’s regulations provide a 5 step sequential evaluation process for determining whether or not a claimant is under a disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Step 1 states that an individual who is working will not be found to be disabled regardless of medical findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Step 2 involves evaluating severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Step 3 requires determining whether the claimant has an impairment or impairments which meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Step 4 states that if an individual is capable of performing past relevant work, he will not be found to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Step 5 requires that if an individual cannot perform past relevant work, other factors must be considered to determine if other work in the national economy can be performed. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential disability evaluation, and at the other-work step places on the Secretary the burden of showing that the claimant can perform work compatible with his age, experience, education, and physical capacity.

Pence v. Louis Sullivan, Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-10-07(f)

The claimant has the ultimate burden of establishing an entitlement to benefits by demonstrating a disability as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Disability benefits must be denied to a claimant if he is employed. On the other hand, in the event that the claimant does not have an impairment which significantly limits his ability to work, he is not disabled and his request for benefits must be rejected. However, where a claimant is not working and has a severe impairment, an examination must be conducted to determine whether the impairment satisfies the severity criteria. If the claimed impairment does satisfy one of the itemized severity criteria, the application for benefits will be granted. However, should the claimed impairment fail to satisfy the list of severity criteria, the Secretary must seek to determine if the claimant can return to his previously held job. 20 CFR § 404.1520 et seq.; See Mullis v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 991 (6th Cir.1988). At this point, it becomes the Secretary's burden to show that the claimant can perform other work, taking into account his age, experience, education, physical capacity, and the existence of jobs to match those qualifications. 20 CFR § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially, with the claimant’s impairments assessed at step three before residual functional capacity is considered at step five.

Mulvenna v. Sullivan · filed 1992-06-02

That appears to be a step 5 type of approach, rather than the appropriate one under which a claimant’s RFC depends entirely on the severity of his or her impairments, which are earlier determined at step 3.

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

Koenig v. Apfel · filed 1999-08-17

To determine whether a claimant is under a disability, the Commissioner applies a five-step sequential evaluation: (1) whether the claimant is currently working; (2) whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the relevant regulation; (4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from continuing his past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any kind of work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1996).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated under a five-step sequential process, with step five determining disability in light of age, education, and residual functional capacity.

Stevenson v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-29(f)

Under the regulations as promulgated by the Commissioner, a five (5) step sequential procedure must be followed when evaluating a disability claim. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) and 416.920(a). In the sequential evaluation, the Commissioner must consider in order: (1) whether a claimant is gainfully employed, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b) and 416.920(b); (2) whether claimant has a severe impairment which significantly limits her ability to perform basic work-related functions, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c); (3) whether claimant’s impairments meet the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d); (4) whether claimant can perform her past relevant work, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e); and (5) whether claimant is disabled in light of age, education, and residual functional capacity, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f). If, at any step in the sequence, a claimant can be found disabled or not disabled, the sequential evaluation ceases and further inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) and 416.920(a). ... Based on this testimony, and the fact that the term “fair,” as defined by the medical assessment form, clearly implies an unsatisfactory ability, the undersigned finds that the Commissioner has failed to satisfy step five (5) of the sequential evaluation and that Plaintiff is disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through five sequential steps, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner bearing it at the fifth.

Burch v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 2001-05-29

In evaluating whether a claimant is entitled to disability insurance benefits, an ALJ must follow the five-step sequential evaluation of disability set forth in the Social Security regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2000). An ALJ must consider whether a claimant (1) is working, (2) has a severe impairment, (3) has an impairment that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment, (4) can return to her past work, and (5) if not, whether the claimant retains the capacity to perform specific jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. See id. The burden of proof and production rests on the claimant during the first four steps, but shifts to the Commissioner on the fifth step. See Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through five sequential steps, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Hill v. Massanari · filed 2001-07-03

To determine whether a claimant is under a disability, the Commissioner applies a five-step sequential evaluation: (1) whether the claimant is currently working; (2) whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the relevant regulation; (4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from continuing her past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any kind of work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1996).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through five sequential steps—employment, severe impairment, listed impairment, past work, and other work—and to stop the inquiry if the claimant fails at any step.

Vicki Banks v. Larry G. Massanari, 1 Commissioner of Social Security Commission · filed 2001-07-30(a)-(f)

Under the familiar five-part analysis utilized in social security disability cases, the ALJ must determine, sequentially, the following: 1) whether the claimant is employed; 2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; 3) whether the impairment meets a listed impairment; 4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past work; and 5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f) (1996). If the claimant fails at any step, the ALJ need not continue.

Section 404.1520 sets out a five-step sequential disability evaluation, with the burden shifting to the Commissioner at the final step to show that the claimant can perform other work.

Wallace v. Barnhart · filed 2003-04-07(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

Regulations promulgated by the Commissioner establish a five-step analysis to determine disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2003). If the claimant is employed during the period in question, a finding of non-disability is made, and the inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). At step two, a determination is made whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment or combination of impairments; if no severe impairment is found, the claimant is deemed not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If step three is reached, a comparison is made between the claimant’s impairments and those listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1(2003). If the impairment meets or equals those contained in the listing, disability is presumed and benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). The fourth step involves a determination as to whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work. ... If this showing is made, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove the existence of other types of substantial gainful employment in the national economy that the claimant can perform. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), (f).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated using a five-step sequence: the claimant bears the burden through steps one to four, and the Commissioner must show available work in the national economy at step five.

Berrios-Velez v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-23(a)-(f)

In making a determination as to whether a claimant is disabled, all of the evidence in the record must be considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). A five-step sequential evaluation process must be applied to every case in making a final determination as to whether a claimant is disabled. ... The claimant has the burden, under steps one through four, of proving that he cannot return to his former employment because of his alleged disability. ... Once a claimant has demonstrated a severe impairment that prohibits return to his previous employment, the Commissioner has the burden, under step five, to prove the existence of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to proceed through five steps, including evaluating at step three whether impairments meet or equal a listed impairment and at step four whether the claimant can perform past work.

Bledsoe v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-31(a)(iii), (a)(4)(iv)

Eligibility for disability benefits is determined by a five step process as outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. A disability claimant must successfully navigate all five steps. ... Step three requires the ALJ to consider whether Bledsoe’s impairments equal the level of severity of an impairment described in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (a “listed impairment”). If one has a “listed impairment” that meets duration requirements there is an irrebutable presumption of disability. Lankford v. Sullivan, 942 F.2d 301, 309 (6th Cir. 1991); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(iii). ... At step four, the ALJ must assess whether Bledsoe could work in any of her previous occupations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i) places the inquiry into whether the claimant is currently employed at the first step of the sequential disability evaluation.

KOSIARA v. Astrue · filed 2007-04-06(a)(4)(i)

In order to determine whether the claimant is disabled, a sequential five-step evaluation must be performed pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The Seventh Circuit has summarized the test as follows: ... (1) whether the claimant is currently employed; (2) whether she has severe impairment; (3) whether her impairment meets or equals one listed [in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1]; (4) whether the claimant can perform her past work; and (5) whether the claimant is performing any work in the national economy. Once the claimant has satisfied Steps One and Two, she will automatically be found disabled if she suffers from a listed impairment. If the claimant does not have a listed impairment, but cannot perform her past work, the burden shifts to the [Commissioner] to show that the claimant can perform some other job.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a sequential five-step process, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner bearing the burden at step five to show other available work.

Costa v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-17(f)

In evaluating a disability claim, an ALJ is required to follow the sequential step analysis prescribed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ must first determine whether a claimant was gainfully employed prior to the onset of the disabling condition. The ALJ must then determine whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment limiting her ability to work. If the impairment is the same as, or equal in its effect to, an impairment (or combination of impairments) listed in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of the regulations, the claimant is presumptively deemed disabled. If the impairment is not covered by Appendix 1, the fourth step of the analysis requires that the claimant prove that her disability is sufficiently serious to preclude a return to her former occupation. ... Only if she meets that burden is the Commissioner at the fifth step obligated to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that she could nonetheless perform.

Section 404.1520(a) requires the Commissioner to follow a set order in evaluating disability claims and stop the review once disability or non-disability is found at any step.

Swainbank v. Social Security Administration · filed 2009-12-16(a)

If an individual is found to be not disabled at any step, the Commissioner need not proceed to the next step. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (“We follow a set order to determine whether you are disabled . . . If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at any point in the review, we do not review your claim any further.”); see also Williams v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1999). ... Here, the Administrative Law Judge applied the correct legal standard in determining that Swainbank was not disabled through the date she was last insured for benefits and, accordingly, in denying her application at step two of the sequential evaluation process, and substantial evidence supports this decision.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability to be evaluated through five steps: current work, severity of the impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and the ability to perform other work considering the claimant’s vocational factors and residual functional capacity.

Kyle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-06-28(a)(4)

The ALJ determines disability using a five-step sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Germany-Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 313 Fed.Appx. 771, 774 (6th Cir. 2008). She must determine, first, whether the claimant is working; second, whether the alleged impairment is severe; third, whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and hence has a certain level of severity; fourth, whether the claimant can still do past relevant work; and, finally, when considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, whether the claimant can do other work. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v)).

Section 404.1520(c), (d), and (f) requires disability claims to be evaluated through the sequential process, including severity, listed impairments, and the claimant’s ability to perform other work.

Boniella v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-08-16(c), (d), (f)

The Social Security Administration has promulgated regulations prescribing a five-step sequential process for evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. We have described this process as follows: ... In step two, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... In step three, the Commissioner compares the medical evidence of the claimant’s impairment to a list of impairments presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... At this stage, the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner, who must demonstrate the claimant is capable of performing other available work in order to deny a claim of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... The ALJ properly weighed the relevant evidence and properly conducted the five-step sequential evaluation to reach its decision.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential process, including determining severity, comparing impairments to listed impairments, assessing past work, and considering other available work.

Boniella v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-08-16(c), (d), (f)

The Social Security Administration has promulgated regulations prescribing a five-step sequential process for evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... We have reviewed the administrative record and agree with the District Court that the ALJ’s decision was based on substantial evidence. Therefore, we will adopt its reasoning. ... The ALJ properly weighed the relevant evidence and properly conducted the five-step sequential evaluation to reach its decision.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated in sequence through five steps, with the inquiry ending when disability can be decided at an earlier step.

Thompson v. Astrue · filed 2011-08-10(a)(4)

The Commissioner uses a five-step process to evaluate a disability claim. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (2010). Pursuant to this process, the Commissioner asks, in sequence, whether the claimant: (1) worked during the alleged period of disability; (2) had a severe impairment; (3) had an impairment that met or equaled the severity of a listed impairment; (4) could return to her past relevant work; and (5) if not, could perform any other work in the national economy. Id. The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). If a decision regarding disability can be made at any step of the process, however, the inquiry ceases. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). ... The evaluation never proceeded to Step Five, where the Commissioner would have been required to prove that Thompson could “make an adjustment to other work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v) (emphasis added); Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5. Thus, the Medical-Vocational Rules, Thompson’s occupational base, and the impact of any exertional or nonexertional limitations on that base were never in issue in this case.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the adjudicator to determine at step four whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work, and a step-two severity error may be harmless when later analysis considers limitations from all impairments.

Watkins v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-06(a)(4)(iv)

The Commissioner has developed a five-step sequential inquiry to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. ... In Step Four, the claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner determines the claimant retains the RFC to perform work she has done in the past. ... Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by not specifically finding that Plaintiffs anxiety disorder is a severe impairment. ... On this record the Court concludes the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiffs RFC included limitations related to all of Plaintiffs psychological impairments, whether severe or nonsevere. Accordingly, even if the ALJ erred by not finding Plaintiffs anxiety disorder is severe, the error was harmless.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ, at the later stages of the sequential evaluation, to consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience in deciding whether the claimant can perform past or other work.

Paris v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-29(f)(1)

At step five in the disability determination process, if the claimant is found unable to do any work she has done in the past because of severe impairment, the ALJ must consider her RFC, age, education, and work experience to see if she can do other types of work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps, and the inquiry ends if the claimant is found disabled at any step.

Brown v. Commissioner · filed 2013-08-22(a)(4)

The Commissioner asks, in sequence, whether the claimant: (1) is working; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) has an impairment that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment;... (4) can return to his past relevant work; and if not, (5) whether he can perform other work. ... The inquiry ceases if the Commissioner finds the claimant disabled at any step of the process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) ends the sequential analysis when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, while subsection (a)(4)(v) requires a disability finding when the claimant cannot perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy.

Farringer v. Colvin · filed 2013-09-17(a)(4)(iii), (a)(4)(v)

...Naseem’s opinion, when given controlling weight, establishes the required level of severity under the criteria contained in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appx. 1, §§ 12.06A and 12.06B. Thus, Farringer’s impairment meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment, so the analysis stops at step three of the five-step sequential analysis, and Farringer is entitled to benefits. ... In the alternative, the evidence is uncontested that given an RFC based on Naseem’s opinion of Far-ringer’s limitations, there is not a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Farringer can perform. ... So, even if the sequential analysis proceeds to step five, Farringer is still entitled to benefits.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including a step-two determination of whether the claimant has a severe impairment and consideration of the claimant’s functional capacity at later steps.

Winn v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2015-06-15

Administrative law judges follow a five-step inquiry laid out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 when determining whether to approve or deny disability benefits: ... Second, plaintiff must show that she suffers from a severe impairment in order to warrant a finding of disability. A severe impairment is one which significantly limits physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. ... For the fifth and final step, even if the plaintiff’s impairment does prevent her from doing her past relevant work, if other work exists in the national economy that plaintiff can perform, plaintiff is not disabled. ... The review is terminated if the Commissioner makes a dispositive finding at any stage of this inquiry.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s impairments through the sequential evaluation, including whether an impairment is severe and whether it meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Libin v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-06-22(c), (d)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (defining a “severe impairment” as an “impairment or combination of impairments” that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities”). ... The ALJ’s failure to consider claimant’s headaches could have impacted the ALJ’s findings at several steps of her analysis: whether Libin had a severe impairment or a combination of impairments equivalent to a listed impairment (steps 2 and 3); the accuracy of the ALJ’s RFC finding and, in determining whether there were available jobs claimant could perform (step 5), the hypotheticals posed to the vocational expert based on that RFC and the limitations the ALJ assessed.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims; failing to classify obesity as severe at step two is not reversible error when the ALJ continues through the process and considers the claimant’s impairments in the later steps.

Griffin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-13

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations setting forth a five-step sequential evaluation process for evaluating disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... Griffin’s first objection must be overruled because although the ALJ did not expressly find Griffin’s obesity as a severe impairment at step two, she nevertheless continued onward under the five-step process and considered Griffin’s impairments in the remaining steps of the analysis.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential disability evaluation, and the decision ends once disability or non-disability can be determined at a step.

Ridgell v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-21(a)(4)

To facilitate a uniform and efficient processing of disability claims, regulations promulgated under the Act have reduced the statutory definition of disability to a series of five sequential questions. ... An examiner must consider the following: (1) whether the claimant is working; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether that impairment meets or equals an impairment included in the Listings; ... (4) whether such impairment prevents claimant from performing PRW; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing specific jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... If a decision regarding disability may be made at any step, no further inquiry is necessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (providing that if Commissioner can find claimant disabled or not disabled at a step, Commissioner makes determination and does not go on to the next step).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether an impairment is severe and to consider all severe and non-severe impairments at every later step, including the RFC determination.

Strickland v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-30(a)(4)(ii), (c), (e)

At Step Two of the sequential steps for evaluating entitlement to social security benefits, an ALJ considers whether the claimant has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is “severe” or a combination of impairments that are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & (c); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) & (c). Social Security regulations establish that after this determination at Step Two, the ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, both “severe” and “non-severe,” at every sequential step in the process, including in the ALJ’s determination of RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), 404.1545, 416.920(e), 416.945, 404.1523(c), 404.1529; SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184, at *5.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment and at step five whether the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Klotz v. Saul · filed 2019-09-04(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(v)

Step two of the sequential evaluation process requires the ALJ to decide whether the claimant has a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... The ALJ reasonably determined that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show that her headaches, obesity, and intellectual disorder were severe impairments. ... The ALJ determines whether the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... The Commissioner has therefore met his burden at step five to show that there were jobs existing in significant numbers that Plaintiff could perform.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, including whether the claimant has a qualifying impairment at step three and can perform other work at step five.

Lester v. Saul · filed 2019-09-25(a)(4)(iii), (g)

The ALJ uses a five-step sequential process in evaluating disability claims. See id. §§ 404.1520(a)-(g). If at any point of this process the ALJ determines conclusively that a claimant is or is not disabled, review does not proceed to the next step. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4). The five steps include evaluations of whether a claimant i) is working; ii) has a severe impairment; iii) has an impairment that meets or equals the impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the Administrative Regulations No. 4; iv) can return to her past relevant work; and v) if not, whether she can perform other work. See id. §§ 404.1520(a)-(g). If the process reaches the fifth inquiry, in order to show that claimant can perform other work, the ALJ must show both A) that claimant, considering claimant’s age, education, work experience, skills, and physical shortcomings, has the capacity to perform an alternative job, and B) that this alternative job exists in significant numbers in the national economy. McLamore v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 572, 574 (4th Cir. 1976).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation in which Step 2 is a threshold inquiry and the ALJ must continue if any severe impairment is found, while considering all impairments together at Step 4.

Roddy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-11

To determine whether a plaintiff is disabled, the ALJ considers the following five questions in order: (1) Is the plaintiff presently unemployed? (2) Does the plaintiff have a severe impairment? (3) Does the impairment meet or medically equal one of a list of specific impairments enumerated in the regulations? (4) Is the plaintiff unable to perform his former occupation? and (5) Is the plaintiff unable to perform any other work? 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... The failure to designate depression as a severe impairment, by itself, is not an error requiring remand. At Step 2 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has one or more severe impairments. This is only a “threshold issue,” and, as long as the ALJ finds at least one severe impairment, she must continue on with the analysis. And, at Step 4, she must consider the combined effect of all impairments, severe and non-severe. Therefore, a failure to designate a particular impairment as “severe” at Step 2 does not matter to the outcome of the case as long as the ALJ finds that the claimant has at least one severe impairment.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to use a five-step sequential process to determine disability, ending review when a claimant is found disabled or not disabled, and to assess residual functional capacity and past-work demands at step four.

Barron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(a), (e)

In order to determine whether the plaintiff is suffering from a disability, the ALJ must employ a five-step inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff is currently working; (2) whether the plaintiff suffers from a severe impairment; (3) whether the impairment is listed in Appendix 1 of the relevant regulations; (4) whether the impairment prevents the plaintiff from continuing past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the plaintiff from doing any kind of work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 & 416.920; Berry, supra, 675 F.2d at 467. If a plaintiff is found to be either disabled or not disabled at any step in this sequential inquiry, the ALJ’s review ends. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) & 416.920(a); Musgrave v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir. 1992). ... To determine whether an admitted impairment prevents a claimant from performing past work, the ALJ is required to review the plaintiff’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the work that has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & 416.920(e).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially, with a severe-impairment determination at step two before listing-level evaluation at step three.

Newman v. Saul · filed 2020-07-17(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iii)

The Commissioner has the better argument on this point, even were Newman’s Somatic Disorder to clear the “severe” threshold. The Commissioner is correct that for the hearing officer to consider a diagnosis at the listing, he would first have to find a “severe impairment” at the second step of the sequential evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). The “severe impairment” requirement is a “de minimis policy, designed to do no more than screen out groundless claims.” ... Similarly, the evidence that Newman’s Somatic Symptom Disorder was linked with increased pain and the exacerbation of her other psychiatric impairments clears the low bar for severity. R. 556, 580, 777, 860. The fact that the hearing officer did not find a severe impairment at step two is therefore an error.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential questions, and the inquiry ends when the Commissioner can decide disability at a step.

Sweat v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-20(a)(4)

An examiner must consider the following: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial-gainful activity; (2) whether he has a severe impairment; (3) whether that impairment meets or equals an impairment included in the Listings;2 (4) whether such impairment prevents claimant from performing PRW;3 and (5) whether the impairment prevents him from doing substantial gainful employment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. These considerations are sometimes referred to as the “five steps” of the Commissioner’s disability analysis. If a decision regarding disability may be made at any step, no further inquiry is necessary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (providing that if Commissioner can find claimant disabled or not disabled at a step, Commissioner makes determination and does not go on to the next step).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step disability sequence, consider all evidence in the record, and continue past step two unless the claimant lacks a medically determinable severe impairment.

Tejedor-Davila v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-06(a)(3), (a)(4)(ii), and (c)

Step two demands a determination of two things: (1) whether a claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, and (2) whether the impairments or combination of impairments is severe, that is, that it significantly limits or is expected to significantly limit the ability to perform basic work-related activities for twelve consecutive months. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140–41 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & 404.1520(c); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (“In making a determination as to whether a claimant is disabled, all of the evidence in the record must be considered.”). ... The ALJ should have continued the sequential analysis.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims in a five-step sequence and stop the evaluation when a claimant is conclusively found disabled or not disabled at any step.

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

The Commissioner uses a five-step process in evaluating DIB claims. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2019). See also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460-62 (1983); Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264-65 (4th Cir. 1981). This process requires the Commissioner to consider, in order, whether a claimant 1) is working; 2) has a severe impairment; 3) has an impairment that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment; 4) can return to her past relevant work; and 5) if not, whether she can perform other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If the Commissioner finds conclusively that a claimant is or is not disabled at any point in this process, review does not proceed to the next step. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (2019).

After the sequential evaluation advances beyond Step Two, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s entire medical condition, including both severe and non-severe impairments, when determining disability.

Stanley v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2021-02-24(d), (e), (f), and (g)

Disability under the Act is determined under a five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... Regardless of the drowsiness allegedly induced by the nausea medication that Stanley takes “every once in a while,” the ALJ was required to – and did in fact – consider her entire medical condition – including severe and non-severe conditions – as required after the administrative review progressed past Step Two in the agency’s sequential evaluation process.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation and requires a severe impairment at step two before the claim proceeds through the remaining steps.

Hoplite v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-01(a)(4), (c)

Social Security Regulations require ALJs to resolve a disability claim through a five-step sequential evaluation of the evidence. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); ... Further, at step two of the sequential evaluation, a plaintiff must show that she suffers from a “severe impairment” in order to warrant a finding of disability. ... A “severe impairment” is defined as an impairment or combination of impairments “which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s failure to include traumatic stress disorder or generalized anxiety disorder as additional severe impairments at step two is legally irrelevant.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v) requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps and permits the analysis to stop once disability or non-disability is established.

Camp v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-29(a)(4)(i)-(v)

Social Security regulations implement a five-step sequential process to evaluate a disability claim. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988) (explaining five steps and burden shifting process). To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner inquires: (1) whether the claimant is currently working; (2) whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the relevant regulation; (4) considering the Commissioner’s assessment of the claimant’s residual functioning capacity (“RFC”), whether the impairment prevents the claimant from continuing her past relevant work; and (5) considering assessment of the RFC and other factors, whether the claimant can perform other types of work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). If a claimant satisfies her burden of proof as to the first four steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to establish the claimant can perform other work in the national economy. Williams, 844 F.2d at 751. “If a determination can be made at any of the steps that a plaintiff is or is not disabled, evaluation under a subsequent step is not necessary.” Id. at 750.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation, and omitting an impairment as severe at step two is not ordinarily reversible error when the ALJ considers all impairments in determining residual functional capacity at step four.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-10(c), (a)(4)(iv)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ decides whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, at *3 (Jan. 1, 1985). The finding of a severe impairment at step two of the sequential analysis is, however, only a threshold determination; where the ALJ has found at least one severe impairment, the sequential evaluation process will continue and the failure to include other severe impairments is not itself reversible error. Maziarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240, 244 (6th Cir. 1987). An ALJ who has found at least one severe impairment must also assess at step four of the sequential evaluation how much work the claimant can perform in her lessened capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). In doing so, “the ALJ must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of [the claimant’s] impairments, even those that are not severe.” Fisk v. Astrue, 253 F.App’x 580, 583 (6th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1523, 416.923. Thus, so long as the ALJ considers at step four all of the claimant’s impairments in determining the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ’s failure to find an additional severe impairment at step two of the sequential evaluation does not ordinarily constitute reversible error. Fisk. 253 F. App’x at 583 (cleaned up).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) establishes a five-step disability evaluation, and a claimant who shows at least one severe impairment proceeds from step two to step three.

Kemp v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-27(a)(4)(ii)

These issues merge because, at step two, the claimant need only demonstrate that he suffers from at least one severe impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant makes such a showing, then the ALJ proceeds to step three of the process.

Section 404.1520 directs the ALJ to determine at step two whether an impairment is severe and at step four whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity permits past relevant work.

Montejo v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-27(a)(ii), (e)

At step two, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is “severe,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(ii), such that it significantly limits her “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... We conclude that Montejo did not satisfy her burden because the medical evidence does not support that her Carpal Tunnel Syndrome causes her any significant impairment. ... At step four, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has the RFC to perform her past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... We affirm the Commissioner’s step-four finding for two reasons. ... Second, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Montejo can perform her past relevant work.

Section 404.1520 requires sequential evaluation of disability claims, including consideration of whether impairments are severe at step two and their medical severity at step three; an impairment found non-severe need not be discussed at step two if it is considered elsewhere in the evaluation.

Markkanen v. Dudek · filed 2025-01-28(a)(4)(ii)-(iii)

step two of the evaluative process is one area where an ALJ must consider which impairments qualify as severe, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), but not the only area, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) (“At the third step, we also consider the medical severity of your impairments.”). ... The ALJ was not required to include in her step two analysis those impairments she found non-severe as well. That is especially true here, where the entirety of the ALJ’s analysis does include those non-severe impairments, and specifically considers the breadth of the impairment Plaintiff complains had been ignored. There is no error here.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation and ends the analysis when a claimant is found not disabled at a step; RFC is assessed only after step three and before step four.

Deutsch v. King · filed 2025-02-03(a)(4)

In evaluating whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ follows the five-step sequential evaluation detailed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. If the ALJ finds a claimant is not disabled at one of the steps, the analysis ends. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4). The ALJ will not proceed onto subsequent steps. Only after proceeding through step three, but before moving to step four, will the ALJ assess a claimant’s RFC. Id. § 404.1520(4). Here, the ALJ found Claimant not disabled at step two of the analysis, A.R. 21–37, and therefore was not required to evaluate Claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including consideration of medically determinable impairments and their severity.

Chappa v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-12(a)(4)(ii)–(iii)

In making their disability determination, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant has any medically determinable impairments (MDIs) and, if so, evaluate the severity of those impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(4)(ii)–(iii). ... Because the ALJ made no indication that she considered the 2010 “six manifestations” factor, she did not apply the proper legal standards.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including consideration of listed impairments before residual functional capacity and past-work analysis.

Rivera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1984-05-24

The Secretary has promulgated a regulation under which the AU evaluates the evidence presented by the claimant in a sequential manner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The regulation has been summarized as follows: ... 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. ... The AU did not indicate that he analyzed the claimant’s impairment in terms of the neurological impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, Appendix I, §§ 11.00, et seq. ... If the AU considered the list, it was incumbent on him to articulate his reason for concluding that Rivera’s condition is not among the impairments listed.

The regulation treats a claimant as disabled when the impairment meets a listed condition, or when it prevents prior work and the claimant lacks the capacity and vocational factors to perform other available work.

Jackie L. HAYS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appell · filed 1990-07-11(d), (e), (f)

If a claimant’s physical impairment satisfies any of the medical conditions set forth in the Listings, the individual is considered to be disabled under the Act. ... Because Hays’ back injury did not constitute one of the medical impairments found in the Listings, his disability claim was evaluated by the AU under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) &‘(f). Under these provisions, an individual is considered disabled if he has an impairment which prevents him from doing prior relevant work, and he does not have the residual functional capacity, the age, education or past work experience to perform other available work.

Section 404.1520 uses a sequential disability evaluation that considers whether impairments meet or equal a listed impairment and, if not, whether the claimant can perform substantial work available in the marketplace.

Brittain v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-04-02(d), (f)

The framework of law for evaluating whether a claimant is disabled is based on the steps outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a-f). ... The ALJ also concluded that none of plaintiff's impairments or combination of impairments were listed in or medically comparable to the impairments which automatically qualify a claimant for disability status. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); Append. 1, Part 404, Subpt. P. ... Based on the testimony of the vocational expert, the ALJ held there were relevant jobs in the marketplace, in substantial number, which Brittain could perform. ... The second decision of the ALJ finding Brittain had treatable asthamatic and allergic conditions and a moderate depressive mental condition which singularly or in combination were not totally disabling is supported by substantial evidence. The finding that substantial work existed in the marketplace which Brittain could perform given her limitations is also supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential inquiry for deciding disability claims, including whether the claimant can perform past work and, if not, other work in the national economy.

Mills v. Sullivan · filed 1992-08-31

When considering whether a claimant is eligible for benefits, the Secretary uses a five-step inquiry: 1) is the claimant presently unemployed; 2) is the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments severe; 3) does the impairment meet or exceed any of the list of specific impairments (the grid) that the Secretary acknowledges to be so severe as to preclude substantial gainful.activity;. 4) if the impairment has not been listed by the Secretary as conclusively disabling, is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation; and 5) if the claimant cannot perform the past occupation, is the claimant unable to perform other work in the national economy in light of his or her age, education and work experience. A negative conclusion at any step (except for step three) precludes a finding of disability. An affirmative answer at steps one, two or four leads to the next step. An affirmative answer at steps three or five results in a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1991).

Section 404.1520(f) permits a disability determination based on inability to return to past work or perform other substantial gainful work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity.

Hendrigsman v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1995-05-05(f)

If the individual’s impairment is not within such listing, the individual is still deemed disabled if, as the result of the impairment, the individual is unable to return to his previous work or perform other substantial gainful employment which exists in significant numbers in the national economy, taking into account the person’s age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... A vocational expert’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s finding that a claimant is capable of performing a significant number of jobs in the economy, as long as the vocational expert’s testimony is in response to an ALJ’s hypothetical question that accurately portray’s claimant’s abilities.

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential evaluation of disability claims, and step three asks whether the claimant meets or equals a listed impairment; the process need not reach step three when an earlier step resolves the claim.

Pettijohn v. Apfel · filed 2000-02-11(a)-(f)

Claimant’s primary attack on the decision by the ALJ is that he failed to address step three of the sequential evaluation set out at 20 CFR § 404.1520(a) through (f). Step three presents the question whether the claimant meets or equals a listed impairment. The record is clear that step three was not necessary.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence; failure at step three does not end the inquiry, and evidence of non-exertional limitations must be considered at step five when determining whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Porcher v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-12(a)(4)

The Social Security Regulations mandate a five-step process for the evaluation of claims for SSI. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v). ... Finally, the Commissioner asks whether, in light of the RFC, age, education, and work experience of the claimant, he can “make an adjustment to other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). At this last step, the burden is on the SSA to establish that there are jobs in the national economy that the claimant could perform. ... Failure to qualify for disability benefits at the third step of the analysis, based either on the exertional limitations or mental impairment of plaintiff, moreover, does not end the inquiry. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ, at the fifth step of the analysis— determining “whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to ... adjust to other work” — failed to account for “subjective and medical evaluations” of mental impairment and pain in reaching his conclusion. When it appears in the record, such evidence of non-exertionallimitations must be factored into the analysis when the ALJ turns to the fifth step.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment at step three.

Cohen v. Barnhart · filed 2006-11-17(a)(4)(iii)

The [ALJ] must determine in sequence: (1) whether the claimant is currently employed; ... If the claimant does not have a listed impairment, but cannot perform her past work, the burden shifts to the [Commissioner] to show that the claimant can perform some other job. ... In this case, the ALJ determined that Cohen was not entitled to DIB at step three: does the impairment meet or exceed one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1? 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential analysis of a disability claim, and the ALJ’s detailed review of the claimant’s medical and personal background was a proper application of that analysis.

Frickey v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr · filed 2016-04-11

Our review of the record indicates that the district court properly held that the ALJ applied the correct standard in determining that Frickey’s impairments did not meet the requirements for Section 12.05 of the Listings. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpart P, App’x 1 – 12.05A. As noted by the district court, in applying the five-step sequential analysis provided in Section 404.1520 to evaluate Frickey’s claim of disability, the ALJ embarked on a detailed review of Frickey’s medical history and evaluationsboth mental and physicalas well as his educational, familial, social, and employment background and history. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Perez, 415 F.3d at 461.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially: a claimant is disabled at step three if an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and the duration requirement, is not disabled if able to perform past relevant work at step four, and at step five must be assessed for the ability to adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Quisenberry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-11-29(a)(4)(iii) and (d), (a)(4)(iv), and (a)(4)(v)

As provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) and (d), “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,” “without considering your age, education, and work experience.” ... At that fourth step, the administrative law judge first must assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity, which is defined as “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her physical and mental] limitations.” ... If a claimant’s residual functional capacity allows her to perform her past relevant work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... At the fifth and final step of the sequential analysis to determine whether a claimant for Social Security disability benefits is in fact disabled, the Commissioner must consider whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience would allow the claimant to “make an adjustment to other work” that “exists in significant numbers in the national economy.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v); 404.1560(c)(2).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine at step three whether an impairment meets or equals a listed condition, and at step five the Commissioner must show that significant numbers of other jobs exist for a claimant with the specified residual functional capacity and vocational characteristics.

Garcia v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-15(a)(4)(v), (d)

At step five, the Commissioner must prove that other work exists in “significant numbers” in the national economy which could be done by an individual with the same RFC, age, education, and work experience as the claimant. ... At step three of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals a condition outlined in a listing. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, with review ending when disability or non-disability is found, presumed disability at step three for a matching listing, and a Commissioner showing at step five that the claimant can adjust to other work.

Bolton v. Saul · filed 2020-01-28(a)(4), (a)(4)(iii), (g)

The Commissioner must perform a five-step analysis to determine whether a particular claimant has met his burden of establishing disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427-28 (3d Cir. 1999). If the Commissioner makes a finding of disability or non-disability at any point in the sequential process, the Commissioner will not review the claim further. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4)(i). ... If the claimant’s impairments are severe, at step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s impairments to a list of impairments that are presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. See id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii1), 416.920(a)(4 (iii); Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428. When a claimant’s impairment or its equivalent matches a listed impairment, the claimant is presumed disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If a claimant’s impairment, either singly or in combination, fails to meet or medically equal any listing, the analysis continues to step four and five. See id. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... If the claimant is unable to return to past relevant work, at step five, the Commissioner must demonstrate that the claimant’s impairments do not preclude him from adjusting to any other available work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g) (mandating finding of non- disability when claimant can adjust to other work); Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to proceed through a five-step evaluation, with step three asking whether the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; satisfying a listing establishes disability.

Santiago-Borrero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(a)(4)(iii), (d)

Claims for disability benefits are evaluated according to a five-step sequential process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24–25 (2003); Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 804 (1999); Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 140–42. If it is determined that plaintiff is not disabled at any step in the evaluation process, then the analysis will not proceed to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... If he does, then the ALJ determines at step three whether plaintiff’s impairment or impairments are equivalent to one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, then plaintiff is conclusively found to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 establishes a five-step process for evaluating disability claims, and an omission at an earlier step may be harmless when the ALJ's RFC analysis clearly considers the relevant impairment.

BERRAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-02-23

Adherence to the five-step procedure is important in its own right, It must be remembered, however, that step three is a screening process that permits the ALJ to award benefits in clear cases without further analysis. The ultimate issue is still the claimant’s RFC, i.e., the level of work he or she can perform despite limitations. I will not reverse when it is patently clear that the ALJ gave careful consideration to obesity when arriving at her bottom-line determination of the RFC..

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential disability evaluation in which the ALJ considers whether the impairment meets or equals a Listing at step three and, if it does not, assesses residual functional capacity and continues to the next step.

Tope v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-23(d), (e)-(f)

At the third step of the disability evaluation, the ALJ examines whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a Listings impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a Listing and meets the durational requirement, then the claimant is disabled. Id. § 404.1509. Alternatively, if the impairment does not meet or medically equal the criteria of a Listing, then the ALJ determines the claimant’s RFC and proceeds to the next step of the disability evaluation. Id. §§ 404.1520(e)-(f).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii)-(v) requires disability adjudicators to evaluate, in sequence, whether the claimant meets a listed impairment, whether the claimant can perform past work based on residual functional capacity, and whether the claimant can adjust to other work available in the national economy.

HIBEN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-11-08(a)(4)(iii)-(v)

At step three ALJs ask whether a claimant has an impairment or combination thereof that meets the criteria for a presumptively disabling impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant does not have such an impairment, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s remaining work ability, i.e., his or her residual functional capacity (“RFC”) which is used to determine whether the claimant can return to past work at step four. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant cannot return to past work, the ALJ moves to step five and asks whether the claimant’s RFC and other vocational factors permit adjustment to other work that is adequately available in the national economy. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). At this final step, “the Commissioner bears the burden of establishing the existence of other available work that the claimant is capable of performing.”

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant to satisfy all criteria of a listed impairment at Step Three to be found disabled; otherwise, the sequential evaluation proceeds to Step Four.

Roland v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-18(a)(4)(iii), (d)-(e)

At Step Three of the sequential evaluation process, 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.

Section 404.1520 treats a listed impairment as grounds for an automatic disability finding; an impairment that is not listed may still be severe and prevent past work.

Boscher v. Heckler · filed 1984-03-28(d)

However, the fact that the claimant’s impairment is not included in the list in Appendix 1 to the regulations does not mean that plaintiff does not suffer from a severe impairment or that plaintiff is able to return to her former employment. The list of impairments which is considered in the third step of the five-step process is merely a short-cut by which disability is automatically found upon a showing that the claimant suffers from a listed impairment.

Section 404.1520(e) requires evaluation of a claimant's residual functional capacity and past-work demands before deciding whether the claimant can return to past work, while § 404.1520(f) requires consideration of other national-economy work only if the claimant cannot perform past relevant work.

Mitchell v. Schweiker · filed 1982-12-07(e), (f)

It is imperative that an ALJ strictly adhere to the “orderly and uniform framework for analysis and decision of disability claims” which fixes the sequence of decision-making that ALJs are required to follow. ... In order to determine whether a claimant can perform past work, the AU is required to review the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) and the physical and mental demands of the work claimant did in the past. If the ALJ then determines that the claimant can still do this type of work, a finding of not disabled is warranted. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... If the ALJ determines that the claimant cannot perform relevant past work, the ALJ must then move on to the next step which is to determine whether the claimant’s impairment prevents her from performing any other work. At that point it is necessary to consider the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and past work experience to determine if the claimant can perform any other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). It is not necessary to consider this step unless the ALJ determines that the claimant cannot return to her past employment.

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential disability determination, with the final step evaluating residual functional capacity, age, education, and work history, and with non-exertional limitations considered alongside exertional limitations.

Wright v. Schweiker · filed 1983-10-28(f), (d)

The regulations require the AU to evaluate the individual’s residual functional capacity, age, education and work history to determine the plaintiff’s ability to do other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f) and 416.-920(f). ... The regulations set forth a progression of steps for the determination of disability, whereby a disability claim may be approved or denied at these various steps based upon the criteria involved at each level. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a-f) and 416.920(a-f). ... The regulations provide that where both types of impairments are present, and a finding of disabled under the rules [20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and 416.-920(d) ] cannot be made on strength (exertional) limitations alone, the rules reflecting the individual’s maximum residual strength capabilities, age, education, and work experience provide a framework for consideration of the extent of further diminution in the individual’s work capabilities via the non-exertional limitations.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims, with the claimant bearing the burdens of production and persuasion through at least step four, when residual functional capacity is determined.

McGraw v. Apfel · filed 1999-12-29

The agency has promulgated regulations that set forth a five-step sequential process for analyzing disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. A claimant has the joint burdens of production and persuasion through at least step four, where the individual’s residual functional capacity (RFC) is determined.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation, including step four's assessment of whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Rivera v. Barnhart · filed 2002-12-23

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. ... 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. ... Because Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform her past relevant work as she actually performed it, the A.L.J. correctly concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled.

Section 404.1520 uses a five-step disability inquiry: at step four, the agency asks whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits past relevant work, and at step five, it must show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers.

Henry v. Comm Social Security · filed 2005-04-14(g) (e)

In reviewing claims for disability insurance benefits, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determines whether a claimant is disabled pursuant to a five-step test. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Here, only the fourth and fifth steps are in play, and we turn first to the fifth step, as it is the focus of much of the briefing. At step five the Commissioner has the burden to show that the claimant can perform other work that exists in substantial numbers in the national economy, and if that burden is met the claimant will be found not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g); Plummer, 186 F.3d at 427-28. ... In step four, the Commissioner examines the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” and whether that capacity enables her to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If so, the claimant is not eligible for disability benefits.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, with the burden shifting to the Commissioner at Step 5 after the claimant cannot perform past relevant work.

Washington v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-06(a)-(f)

Regulations require a five-step sequential analysis for initial disability determinations. ... ALJ Raines clearly utilized this process. He found at Step 4 that plaintiff is not disabled because he retains residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work. Therefore, he was not required to make findings at Step 5, where the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to prove ability to perform alternative work.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, with step four asking whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity permits past relevant work.

Porter v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-14(a)(4), (a)(4)(iv)

The Commissioner uses a sequential five-step inquiry to evaluate disability claims under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461 (5th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). In step four of the inquiry, the Commissioner considers whether the claimant has the RFC to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ determining disability to use a five-step sequential analysis addressing the claimant’s work, impairment, residual functional capacity, past work, and vocational factors.

Vang v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-20

To determine the existence and extent of a claimant’s disability, the ALJ must follow a five-step sequential analysis, requiring the ALJ to make a series of factual findings regarding the claimant’s work history, impairment, residual functional capacity, past work, age, education and work experience.

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential disability evaluation in which the agency assesses residual functional capacity before deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work at step four, and then considers at step five whether a substantial number of jobs exist that the claimant can perform given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Keener v. Saul · filed 2019-08-16(a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

Before addressing the fourth step, the SSA must assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which defines his or her exertional and non-exertional capacity to work. The SSA then determines at step four whether the claimant is able to engage in any of his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can do so, he is not disabled. Id. If the claimant cannot undertake her past work, the SSA proceeds to step five to determine whether a substantial number of jobs exist that the claimant can perform in light of her RFC, age, education, and work experience. An individual is not disabled if he or she can do work that is available under this standard. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) shifts the burden to the Commissioner at step five to show that, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, she can adjust to other work in the national economy.

Brown v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-18(a)(4)(v)

If she makes this showing, the burden shifts at step five to the Commissioner to demonstrate that, based on the claimant’s RFC, she can “make an adjustment to other work” in the national economy. /d. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and, if not, adjust to other work.

Fluker v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-11-13

To determine if a claimant has a disability, the SSA regulations mandate that an ALJ must follow a five-step sequential evaluation while evaluating a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 416.920. Pursuant to the regulations, the ALJ must proceed with his analysis as follows: ... 4. Does the claimant have the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to return to past relevant work? If “yes” the claimant is not disabled. If no, proceed to the final step of the analysis. Id. ... 5. Does the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience allow him or her to make an adjustment to other work? If “no,” the claimant is disabled. If “yes,” the claimant is not disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to determine at step four whether a claimant can perform past relevant work and at step five whether the claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant's vocational factors and residual functional capacity.

Raby v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-04(f), (g)

At Step Four, the ALJ is required to determine whether Plaintiff’s RFC enabled him to perform his past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). Here, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff did not have any past relevant work, and Plaintiff does not challenge this finding. ... At Step Five, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and RFC in order to determine whether Plaintiff could perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). At the hearing, the ALJ asked the VE whether an individual with Plaintiff’s vocational profile and RFC could perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The VE testified in the affirmative, and identified representative jobs of assembler, inspector, and sorter. (AR 141-142.) The hypothetical that the ALJ posed to the VE contained all of the limitations that the ALJ found credible and supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the ALJ’s reliance on the VE’s testimony was proper.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential steps, with the claimant bearing the burden through Step Four and the Commissioner bearing it at Step Five.

Thompson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-15

The Commissioner follows a five-step evaluation process—found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520—to determine if a claimant is disabled: ... Under this five-step sequential analysis, the claimant has the burden of proof in Steps One through Four. ... The burden shifts to the Commissioner at Step Five to establish whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform available work in the national economy. ... Only if a claimant satisfies each element of the analysis, including inability to do other work, and meets the duration requirements, is she determined to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b)-(f); see also Walters, 127 F.3d at 529.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to compare a claimant's residual functional capacity with past relevant work and then consider whether the claimant can perform other work in light of age, education, and work experience.

Engwer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-28(a)(4)

Steps four and five of the sequential analysis involve the application of the Plaintiffs RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). This analysis entails: ... Step 4: The Commissioner evaluates whether the claimant’s RFC would allow her to perform her past relevant work. If so, she will be found not disabled. ... Step 5: The Commissioner considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education and past work experience to determine whether she is capable of performing other work. If the claimant cannot perform other work, she will be found disabled. If the claimant can perform other work, she will be found not disabled.

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

Franklin v. Apfel · filed 1998-05-22

The Commissioner must use the five-step inquiry outlined in the Social Security regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1990). The Second Circuit recently summarized this five-step process for evaluating claims of disability as follows: ... Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his or her past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the SSA to prove that the claimant is capable of performing “any other work.”

Section 404.1520 uses a sequential evaluation in which a finding that the claimant can perform past relevant work ends the review at step four, while inability to do that work requires evaluation of whether the claimant can do other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Heinze v. Heckler · filed 1983-12-22(e) (a)

This case was decided under the Secretary’s five-step progressive test for evaluation of disability, found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. In reviewing plaintiff’s claim the Secretary reached the fourth step of the evaluation and found that plaintiff could perform his past relevant work as a quality control inspector. Tr. 13. This finding dictated the Secretary’s conclusion that plaintiff was not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Under the terms of the regulation the Secretary was thus not required to undertake further review. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520(f)(1) requires the agency to determine whether a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work can perform other substantial gainful work; non-substantial past work cannot by itself establish that the claimant is not disabled.

Dorothy M. VAUGHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appell · filed 1984-03-19(f)(1)

Having found that the AU incorrectly credited Vaughn’s “past relevant work” as dispositive of the disability issue, we must remand to the Secretary for further proceedings. On remand, the appropriate question is whether, given Vaughn’s capacity, age, education and work experience, she is able to do substantial work within the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.-1520(f)(1) (1983). This “substantial work” must, of necessity, amount to more than she is currently performing.

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary, when evaluating current disability, to proceed from inability to return to past work to whether the claimant can perform another job in the national economy.

Johnson v. Heckler · filed 1984-12-21

Under the applicable Social Security regulations, if there is no substantial evidence that the claimant can return to his or her old job, the Secretary’s next line of inquiry is to determine whether the claimant could perform any other job in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.

Section 404.1520 requires disability eligibility to be evaluated through its sequential five-step process, including determining at step four whether the claimant can perform past relevant work before proceeding further.

Norwood v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-04-20

In denying Mrs. Norwood's application for benefits with respect to the period prior to May 19, 1988, the ALJ invoked the fourth step of the five-step process prescribed by the regulations for determining eligibility for disability benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... When he came to step four, the ALJ determined that Mrs. Norwood could perform her past relevant work as a sewing machine operator. ... As to the step four determination, we conclude that the ALJ was in error in finding that Mrs. Norwood could perform her past relevant work as a sewing machine operator.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequential process to evaluate disability claims, including determining at step four whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Martinez v. Chater · filed 1995-07-10

In evaluating a disability claim, the Commissioner must follow a five-step sequential process to determine whether (1) the claimant is presently working; (2) the claimant's ability to work is significantly limited by a physical or mental impairment; (3) the claimant's impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in the appendix to the regulations; (4) the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) the claimant cannot presently perform relevant work. See Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. In this case, at the fourth step of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Martinez could perform his past relevant work.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Zaldivar v. Apfel · filed 2000-01-25

As summarized below, a five-step sequential analysis must be used when evaluating a disability claim.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims, and at step four the claimant bears the burden of showing that the impairment prevents performance of past relevant work.

Perez v. Barnhart · filed 2002-12-05

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations which set forth a five-step sequential test to evaluate disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1981). The Second Circuit has summarized this test as follows: ... In the instant case, the ALJ denied Plaintiffs claim at step four of the sequential evaluation process, where the claimant bears the burden to proof that he is unable to perform his past relevant work. Tr. at 31. Hence, the ALJ applied the proper legal standard in denying Plaintiffs application.

Section 404.1520(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential analysis, ending with whether the claimant can perform other work in light of the claimant's residual capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Guerrero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-09-20(a)

In order to receive DIB under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, the claimant must satisfy the five-step sequential analysis established by the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. If at any step, the analysis reveals that the claimant is not disabled, the claim will not be further reviewed. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) and 416.920(a). ... At step four, the Commissioner considers whether the claimant is still able to perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant can perform past relevant work, the claim is automatically terminated. If the claimant cannot do any past relevant work, the analysis proceeds to the fifth and final step. In that step, the Commissioner considers whether the claimant has the residual capacity to do any other work. If the claimant cannot do any work in light of his or her age, education, and work experience, the Commissioner will determine that the claimant is disabled.