20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) provides that a claimant is disabled if her impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Medina v. SSA · filed 2024-08-23(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step in the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App'x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010).

At step three, § 404.1520(d) treats an impairment meeting or equaling a listed impairment as disabling, leaving the ALJ no discretion over benefits.

Goss v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-28(d)

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the criteria for a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Where an impairment does so, it is per se disabling and the ALJ has no discretion in awarding benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 183 (9th Cir. 1990).

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

Land v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-04(d)

At step three of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals an impairment contained in the listings. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step process, including a Step Three determination of whether the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Weese v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-17(a)(4)(iii)

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

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) directs the Commissioner to determine whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and § 404.1520(d) permits a finding of disability when the claimant has an impairment that meets a listing.

Mead v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-30(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At the third step, the Commissioner determines whether the “impairment(s) . . . meets or equals” a listing in Appendix 1 of the applicable regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); see Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64, 70 (2d Cir. 2022) (explaining that at the Commissioner determines at step three “whether the impairment (or combination) meets or equals the severity of one of the impairments specified in” the listings). “The claimant bears the burden of proof [at the third step] of the sequential inquiry.” Schillo, 31 F.4th at 70 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013)). If the claimant proves that he or she has an impairment that meets a listing in Appendix 1, the Commissioner may find the claimant disabled at the third step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). The Second Circuit has “cautioned that an ALJ ‘should set forth a sufficient rationale in support of his decision to find or not to find a listed impairment.’” Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 468 (2d Cir. 1982).

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

Duvall v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-10(d)

At Step Three, the ALJ was required to determine whether any of Duvall’s impairments, or combination thereof, met or medically equaled a listed impairment. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526. ... In short, the ALJ’s cursory Step Three analysis and failure to meaningfully review Duvall’s medical records related to fibromyalgia prevent this Court from being able to determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s Step Three finding. ... Remand is appropriate.

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; meeting or equaling a listing makes the claimant presumptively disabled.

Mosley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-21(d)

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). The listings describe specific impairments that are considered “severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity, regardless of his or her age, education, or work experience.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1525(a), 416.925(a). A claimant whose impairments either meet or equal a listing is presumptively disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

At step three, § 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled when her impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

Gosser v. SSA · filed 2024-12-05(d)

At the third step, if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, then she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... In the Court’s view, the ALJ’s analysis here does not run afoul of the substantial-evidence standard. ... In conclusion, while a different factfinder could conceivably have reached a different conclusion, this ALJ’s discussion of Listing 11.02 equivalency was supported by substantial evidence and not legally erroneous.

Section 404.1520(d) requires an ALJ at step three to decide whether an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, with a favorable finding resulting in disability.

Miles v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-07(d)

At step three, the ALJ examines whether a claimant's impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of Regulation No. 4 (the “Listings”). Id. § 404.1520(d). If the impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a Listing and meets the durational requirement, the claimant is disabled. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1509.

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

Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-27(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals one of the listings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... Like in Johnson, I find that based on the record before me, the ALJ’s failure at step three to explain why Claimant’s headaches are not medically equal to Listing § 11.02(B) requires remand because I “cannot say whether there was sufficient evidence to support [the ALJ’s decision].” Hesseltine, 800 F.3d at 466. Accordingly, I recommend that the District Court reverse and remand this matter to properly address medical equivalency under Listing § 11.02(B) for Claimant’s migraine headaches at step three of the five-step sequential evaluation.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to evaluate whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, and the decision must sufficiently explain an unfavorable medical-equivalence finding for judicial review.

Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-12(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the five-step evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, which are generally referred to as the “Listings.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... Considered together, all of the above authorities require the ALJ’s decision, read as a whole, to somewhere “provide a sufficient explanation for a court to determine the basis for [an] unfavorable finding about medical equivalence” like the ALJ made here.

Section 404.1520(d) requires Step 3 evaluation of whether impairments meet or medically equal an Appendix 1 listing, but it does not require a separate medical-equivalence analysis when later sequential-evaluation reasoning supplies the rationale for the finding.

Williams v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-14(d)

In Step 3, the ALJ must determine whether the impairments meet or medically equal the criteria of a relevant listing in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... Regardless, the Sequential Evaluation process does not require the ALJ to analyze separately whether a claimant’s limitations medically equal a listing in Step 3. If the ALJ later articulates why Claimant’s impairments do not render him sufficiently disabled, no further analysis is required.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ at step three to determine whether a claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; if they do, the evaluation ends and the claimant is considered disabled.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-28(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three of the ALJ’s five-step process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal any listing. ... If the claimant meets or equals one of the listings, the evaluation process is concluded, and the individual is considered disabled. ... To meet a listing, a plaintiff must show that his or her medically determinable impairment satisfies all of the specified criteria in a listing. ... Where a claimant’s impairment manifests only some of those criteria, such impairment does not qualify regardless of its severity. ... The claimant bears the burden of proof at this step of the “sequential inquiry”. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s schizoaffective disorder did not meet the requirements of Listing 12.03.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) provides that a claimant is disabled at step three when the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Imhof v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-18(a)(4)(iii)

At Step 3 of the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if his or her impairments meets or equal one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... So the Court must assess whether Imhof has shown that the record raises a substantial question that she could satisfy each requirement of Listing 11.02B. If she has, then it was an error that the ALJ did not discuss it. ... So, the ALJ’s decision not to discuss Listing 11.02B is also supported by substantial evidence in the record that demonstrates Imhof’s migraines do not meet or medically equal the listings requirements.

At step three, § 404.1520 directs the Commissioner to determine whether a claimant’s severe impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; a qualifying impairment results in disability without considering age, education, or work experience.

Moreno v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-20(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ considers whether a claimant’s severe impairment(s) meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments the Commissioner deems sufficiently severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1. Listed impairments are “conclusively presumed to be disabling.” Lax, 489 F.3d at 1085 (quotation omitted). Thus, if a claimant’s medically severe impairment(s) meets or equals one of the listed impairments, she will be found disabled without considering her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) governs step three of the sequential disability analysis, under which impairments meeting or equaling a listed impairment are disabling.

LaVia v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-04(d)

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the criteria for a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Where an impairment does so, it is per se disabling and the ALJ has no discretion in awarding benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 183 (9th Cir. 1990). ... Though Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s conclusions are “boilerplate,” and “cite[] to no medical evidence,” Pl. Reply at 10, the ALJ made many specific citations to the record, and incorporated Plaintiff’s medical history in her analysis, which is sufficient at step three. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Because the ALJ supported her decision that Plaintiff’s limitations were not per se disabling at step three, the Court will not disturb the ALJ’s opinion on this basis.

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ at step three to evaluate whether the claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment; if they do, the claimant is deemed disabled.

Wandick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-17(d)

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

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires a claimant to show that an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment for the applicable duration period.

Marrero-Narvaez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-24(a)(4)(iii)

I agree with the Commissioner that Plaintiff did not provide evidence from a medical source that supports the need for an assistive device for a continued period of at least 12 months, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(c)(3).

At step three, § 404.1520(d) requires an ALJ to determine whether a claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment, but an ALJ does not commit harmful error by failing to separately consider a listing for an impairment found non-severe at step two.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-24(d)

At step three of the evaluation process, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals an impairment contained in the listings. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). ... An ALJ does not harmfully err by failing to specifically consider the listing of non-severe impairments, identified at step two, in considering whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal the listings at step three.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the claimant to show that her impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; if she cannot, the disability analysis proceeds to step four.

MANFREADY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-04-28(a)(4)(iii)

The third step requires that the claimant provide evidence that her impairments are equal to at least one of the impairments listed in Appendix | of the regulations. Jd. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Ifthe claimant demonstrates that she suffers from a listed impairment or that her severe impairment is equal to a listed impairment, she is presumed to be disabled and entitled to DIB benefits. fd; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If she cannot so demonstrate, the eligibility analysis proceeds to step four. See id. § 404.1520(e). ... Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not meet her burden of demonstrating that the ALJ erred at step three. ... The Court, accordingly, upholds the ALJ’s determination at step three.

At Step Three, § 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ to compare the medical evidence with the listed impairments; a failure to address a listing is harmless when the claimant fails to show a substantial question that the impairment meets or medically equals it.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-29(d)

As noted above, at Step Three, the ALJ must compare the medical evidence to the requirements of the listed impairments to determine whether the claimant meets or medically equals any listing. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d); Reynolds, 424 Fed. Appx. at 415. ... Ms. Johnson thus has not met her burden of showing a substantial question that her headaches medically equal Listing 11.02. As a result, any Step Three error is harmless.

Section 404.1520(d) directs the ALJ at step three to decide whether an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does, the claimant is disabled.

Rice v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-28(d)

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the criteria for a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Where an impairment does so, it is per se disabling and the ALJ has no discretion in awarding benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 183 (9th Cir. 1990).

At step three, the regulation requires an ALJ to assess the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments and determine whether an impairment meets or equals a listing for the required duration.

Munguia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-29(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ must again “consider the medical severity” of a claimant’s impairments to determine whether one or more impairment “meets or equals” a listing for the required duration, resulting in a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). By failing to consider or address the SFN, the ALJ failed to consider whether S.M.’s impairments met or equaled listing 11.14.

At Step Three, a claimant must show that an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does not, the sequential evaluation proceeds to Step Four.

Lazuka v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-17(a)(4)(iii), (d)-(e)

At Step Three, a claimant has the burden to show that they have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. ... If the claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, they are disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment and to find the claimant disabled if it does.

Rivera-Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-24(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ determines whether a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals a listing in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (The “Listing of Impairments”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). The SSA’s Listings of Impairments describes, “for each of the major body systems[,] [the] impairments that [the SSA] consider[s] to be severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a). If the ALJ finds that an impairment meets or equals a listing, the ALJ must find that the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

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

COMER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-07-29(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or medically equals the severity of any impairment in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... While it is true that an ALJ is not required to use “particular language” when determining whether a claimant meets a listing, the ALJ’s discussion must still provide for “meaningful review.” ... In this case, considering the ALJ’s decision as a whole, the Court cannot say that the ALJ’s discussion regarding epilepsy met this standard. It is not clear to the Court how the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff does not meet or medically equal Listing 11.02.

At step three, the regulation requires an ALJ to determine whether an impairment meets or is medically equivalent to a listed impairment.

Sauvageau v. O'Malley · filed 2025-08-14(a)(4)(iii)

As part of step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or is medically equivalent to one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or is medically equivalent to one of the listings and meets the durational requirement, then the claimant is disabled and there is no consideration of the claimant’s “age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

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

HOOK, II v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-04-24(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step in the sequential evaluation process, a claimant will be considered disabled where a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meet(s) durational requirements and meet(s) or equal(s) the criteria for Listed Impairments.

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

LODISE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2025-08-29(d)

“At step three, an ALJ is charged with determining whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets, or medically equals, the criteria of an impairment listed in [20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)] . . . .”

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine at step three whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if the claimant meets all listing criteria, the claimant is disabled, otherwise the ALJ proceeds to the next step.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-02(a)(4)(iii), (d)–(e)

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

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) establishes step three: a claimant is disabled if the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-22(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step, a claimant will be found disabled if his impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). ... Because Plaintiff has not pointed to any specific evidence that raises a substantial question that his neuropathy meets or equals a listing, the ALJ’s omission of discussing that listing is not error. See id.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and provides for a finding of disability when it does.

Calcagni v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-23(a)(4)(iii), (d)

Step Three: Does the claimant’s impairment meet or equal one of the listed impairments acknowledged by the Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). 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(d), 416.920(d). ... Because the ALJ erred at Step Three2 and Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity, a remand for an immediate award of benefits is appropriate.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) and (d) require finding disability when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Dounce v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-24(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation, a finding of disability is compelled where the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d). Each Listing sets forth the specific “symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings” which must be established for a claimant’s impairment to meet the Listing.

At step three, § 404.1520 requires a finding of disability when a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

Castro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-16(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation, a finding of disability is compelled where the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d).

Section 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant is conclusively presumed disabled at step three when an impairment meets or is medically equivalent to the listed criteria, without regard to age, education, or work experience.

Avina v. SSA Commissioner · filed 2025-10-10(d)

If a claimant’s impairment either meets the listed criteria for the diagnosis or is medically equivalent to the criteria of the diagnosis, he is conclusively presumed to be disabled, without considering age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

At step three, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if it does, the claimant is disabled.

Davis · filed 2025-11-24(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three, the ALJ “asks whether the claimant satisfies a listed disability.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... In her decision, the ALJ stated that Plaintiff’s “impairment does not meet or medically equal listing 1.20 for amputation due to any cause.” ... The ALJ is correct in this assertion; Plaintiff does not satisfy every element of Listing 1.20. The evidence and reasoning are sufficiently set out in the ALJ’s decision. Therefore, there is substantial evidence in support of the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s impairments do not meet or medically equal Listing 1.20.

At the listed-impairment stage, section 404.1520 requires the claimant's impairment to meet the applicable listing criteria for the claimant to be found disabled at that stage.

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

And this impairment must, among other requirements, meet the definition of a listed impairment under the Social Security regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v) (2012); Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). ... For the above reasons, we determine that substantial evidence existed to support the ALJ’s decision that Leach did not meet the requirements for a listed impairment.

At Step Three, a claimant is disabled if an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and the claimant bears the burden of establishing that it does.

Mcilvain · filed 2026-01-30(a)(4)(iii)

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

Section 404.1520 requires disability adjudication through five sequential steps and treats a claimant as disabled at step three when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Kauffman · filed 2026-02-17(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step in the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or equals one of the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). ... The Court finds the ALJ failed to sufficiently address whether Kauffman met the requirements of Listing 14.06. Although the ALJ acknowledges this Listing at Step Three, he fails to “‘actually evaluate the evidence,’” compare it to the specific requirements of Listing 14.06, and provide an “‘explained conclusion’” as to why the evidence failed to satisfy those requirements. See Harvey, 2017 WL 4216585, at *5; Reynolds, 424 F. App’x at 416.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires a claimant to be found disabled at Step Three when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment and satisfies the duration requirement.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-11-17(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three of the evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments and meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination meets or medically equals a listed impairment; an unexplained determination at that step is insufficient.

Charles · filed 2026-03-12(a)(4)(iii)

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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is automatically found to be disabled. Id. ... In sum, the Court cannot conclude that the ALJ provided adequate reasons behind the determination that Plaintiff does not meet the paragraph C requirements for Medical Listings 12.03(C), 12.04(C), and/or 12.15(C). It is unclear what evidence supports the ALJ’s apparent determination that Plaintiff does not meet the paragraph C2 (marginal adjustment) requirement for the listings above. Although the ALJ is not required to discuss the evidence supporting a Step Three conclusion at any specific point in the decision, Lewis, 236 F.3d at 513, the ALJ must still “explain adequately his evaluation of alternative tests and the combine effects of the impairments.” Marcia, 900 F.2d at 176. The ALJ has not done so here, even though Plaintiff raised the issue at the hearing and in the briefing. Cf. De Botello, 2011 WL 3292401, at * 9 (finding the ALJ’s Step Three analysis adequate when Plaintiff did not argue for a Medical Listing at the hearing or in the Opening Brief). The Court may only “review the reasons the ALJ asserts” in the decision. Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the ALJ failed to assert clear reasons for the Step Three determination, which is especially troublesome in light of evidence showing Plaintiff’s ongoing need for support around her mental conditions, including inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations, in response to changes and stressors in her life. Therefore, the ALJ’s statement that Plaintiff did not meet or medically equal the listings was insufficient and constitutes reversible error. See Marcia, 900 F.2d at 176.

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

Massie · filed 2026-03-12(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or is medically equal to the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. ... Therefore, the undersigned FINDS that the ALJ complied with her duty under the applicable law to consider Claimant’s impairments in combination at step three of the sequential evaluation.

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

Holloway · filed 2026-03-20(a)(4)(iii)

At Step 3, an ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s impairments, alone or in combination, meet or equal any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); see also Seavey, 276 F.3d at 5.

Section 404.1520 requires the disability analysis to proceed to step four when the claimant's impairments do not meet or medically equal a listed impairment at step three.

Shank · filed 2026-03-26(d)-(e)

If the impairments do not meet all criteria, the analysis proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)-(e). ... The Court, finding no error, affirms the Magistrate Judge’s findings concerning Step Three and turns to Step Four of the disability analysis.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P.

Jimenez · filed 2026-03-30(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, a severe impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment establishes disability without further inquiry.

Butler v. City of Jacksonville · filed 2008-05-08(d)

The third step asks whether the claimant has a severe impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (1992). If the claimant has a severe impairment that meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is found to be disabled without any further inquiry. See id. ... Although not acknowledged by the JCC in his final order, by finding that the claimant met a listed impairment, the JCC should have found the claimant disabled without any further inquiry.

At step three, an ALJ must explain whether severe impairments, individually and in combination, meet or medically equal a listed impairment sufficiently to permit meaningful judicial review.

SLADER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-01-15(a)(4)(iii)

This error constitutes a sufficient basis on which to remand the case to the Commissioner for further explanation of why Slade’s impairments, particularly in combination with lupus, do not meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.

Under § 404.1520(d), a claimant whose impairment meets or equals a listed impairment is per se disabled.

Zeiders v. Saul · filed 2021-04-09(d)

If a claimant’s impairments meet or equals one of the listed impairments, a claimant is per se disabled under the regulations. Id. at 119; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... Accordingly, we conclude that Zeiders is per se disabled under listing 12.05C, and the only remaining question is whether remand or reversal is appropriate.

At step three, an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment requires a finding of disability and an award of benefits.

Harris v. Callahan · filed 1998-06-05(d)

As stated in V(A), the third step of the sequential evaluation process requires that the ALJ determine whether an applicant’s impairments equal or exceed those in the listings. If they do, the person must be found disabled and benefits awarded.

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant who meets a listed impairment as disabled at step three, ending the inquiry.

Graham v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-22(d)

If a claimant meets an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, then the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled and the inquiry ends. ... Plaintiff met his burden at step three in showing that his condition met Listing 12.06(A) and (B), and is therefore disabled.

At step three, the ALJ must adequately analyze whether a claimant’s impairment meets a relevant listing; a perfunctory analysis may require remand.

Cruz v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-27(a)(4)(iii)

Given the ALJ’s failure to mention the specific listing for mental retardation, classification of the Plaintiffs claimed retardation as a “learning disability,” and failure to explain his reasoning in denying the existence of any mental disability, this Court concludes that the ALJ’s analysis on this question was impermissibly perfunctory and remands for a more thorough analysis of the Plaintiffs alleged mental disability, including further psychological assessments and development of the record regarding Plaintiffs mental ability before age 22, as necessary.

At step three, the hearing officer must explain whether a claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment well enough to permit judicial review.

Wood v. Colvin · filed 2013-12-17(a)(4)(iii)

In this case, the hearing officer’s otherwise thorough decision failed to set forth sufficient factual or legal support for his finding that none of Wood’s impairments matched or medically equaled an impairment listed in Appendix 1. ... The Court cannot discern whether the hearing officer’s decision was based on the correct application of legal principles or is supported by substantial evidence and therefore remands the matter for further development of the record.

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

Ridge v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-30(d)

If so, the ALJ would find plaintiff disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

At step three, the ALJ considers whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; a finding may stand when the ALJ adequately evaluates the evidence without discussing every listing criterion.

Olson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-03(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... The Court finds the ALJ did not err. ... However, the ALJ is not required to state why a claimant fails to satisfy every criteria of the listing if they adequately summarize and evaluate the evidence. See Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200-01 (9th Cir.1990). The ALJ engaged in a thorough discussion of the medical evidence.

At step three, the ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals an applicable listed impairment.

Colon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ asks whether a claimant’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). ... Here, the ALJ did not consider listing 1.02(A), major dysfunction of a joint.

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

Herman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-19(d)

At step three, the ALJ examines whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of Regulation No. 4 (the “Listings”). Id. § 404.1520(d). ... Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff did not meet or equal Listing 1.04(A), the Court finds no error.

At step three, an impairment that meets or medically equals a Listing results in a finding of disability and ends the sequential evaluation.

Boswell v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-09-21(d)

If the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a Listing, the claimant will be found disabled and the sequential evaluation will end at Step 3. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). ... In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff Boswell has not met her heavy burden of showing that Claimant Boswell’s skin condition met or medically equaled a Listing in Section 8.00. As such, the ALJ did not err at Step 3.

At step three, the Commissioner must consider whether each severe impairment meets its applicable listing, but omitting a listing is harmless when findings on other listings necessarily rule it out.

Coughlin v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-28(a)(4)(iii)

Because the Commissioner is supposed to address whether each of the claimant’s severe impairments meets the relevant criteria in the listings, the ALJ should have mentioned Listing 12.15. ... Because either the Paragraph B or Paragraph C criteria must be met to satisfy Listing 12.15, the ALJ’s findings logically foreclosed a conclusion that Coughlin’s impairments satisfied Listing 12.15.

At step three, a claimant whose impairment meets a listed impairment is disabled without consideration of age, education, or work experience.

Pansing v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-04(d)

Since Plaintiff’s impairment meets a Listed Impairment, he is found disabled without any need to consider his age, education, or work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); Reynolds, 424 F. App’x at 416.

At step three, the ALJ considers whether a claimant’s impairments in combination meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

WARD v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-03-11(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or medically equals the severity of any of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments.

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

HERNANDEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-03-13(d)

At step three, the ALJ is tasked with determining whether a DIB claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, and 404.1526. ... Therefore, the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s depressive disorder with psychosis exclusively under Listing 12.04 would not constitute a harmful error under the circumstances.

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

Webb v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-18(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... The ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment at step three is supported by substantial evidence.

At step three, the ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s impairments, including obesity, meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

BRYANT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-03-26(a)(4)(iii)

Accordingly, this Court finds that the ALJ appropriately considered Plaintiff’s obesity as part of the medical equivalency analysis at step three.

At step three, the ALJ must sufficiently explain whether a claimant’s severe impairments, considered together, meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

GRACE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-04-10(a)(4)(iii)

Further, the ALJ did not sufficiently analyze whether the combination of Plaintiffs six severe medically discernable impairments equaled the level of severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.

At step three, a claimant must show at least two marked paragraph B restrictions or one extreme restriction to establish listing-level severity.

Zimansky v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-29(d)

To establish listings-level severity at step three, a claimant is required to prove she has at least two “marked” restrictions or one “extreme” restriction in the paragraph B criteria. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... Simply put, the ALJ does not provide substantial evidence to support his evaluation of three out of the four paragraph B criteria.

At step three, a claimant whose impairments meet or equal a listed impairment is found disabled; otherwise, the evaluation continues to step four.

Victor Gerard Guyton, II v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-06-10(d)

If the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment, the claimant will be found to be disabled without further analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d), (e). If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four.

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ to compare a claimant’s medical evidence with the listed impairments to determine whether the impairment is presumptively disabling.

Caruso v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-05-19(d)

At step 3, the ALJ must compare the claimant’s medical evidence to a list of impairments presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... Therefore, we are able, as was the District Court, to conduct the meaningful review required by Burnett, and we find the ALJ’s conclusions at step 3 to be supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(c) deems a claimant disabled when, at step three, a severe impairment meets the criteria for an impairment listed in Appendix 1.

Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-06-28(c)

A Social Security claimant is deemed disabled and eligible for benefits if he establishes at step three of the sequential analysis that his severe impairment satisfies the criteria for an impairment listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

At step three, a claimant who meets a listed impairment is disabled and needs no further evaluation.

Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-17(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ’s errors were not harmless. The regulations indicate if a claimant is found to meet a listed impairment, they are disabled within the meaning of the regulations and are entitled to benefits and no more analysis is necessary.

A claimant who meets a listed impairment is disabled at step three, without an RFC assessment or consideration of steps four and five.

(SS) Kiser v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(d)

Conditions described in the listings are automatically disabling if the requirements of that listing are met. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Thus, if a claimant meets the criteria for a listing, the ALJ need not determine claimant’s RFC and does not proceed to steps four and five. See id.

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

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

At step three in the sequential process, an ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s conditions meet or equal any of the impairments outlined in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, a claimant must show that an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment to be found disabled on that basis.

Amazzalorso v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(a)(4)(iii), (d)

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown that he meets or equals a listing or that the ALJ erred in his step three finding. Because substantial evidence of record supports the ALJ’s step three finding, remand is not warranted on this basis.

At step three, an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment establishes disability; otherwise, the evaluation continues.

Upshaw v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-19(d)

As discussed above, an ALJ must evaluate a claimant’s impairments to see if they meet or equal any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). ... The Court is satisfied, as explained to follow, that the ALJ’s step three determination is supported by substantial evidence.

At step three, a claimant who meets or medically equals a listed impairment is conclusively presumed disabled.

Federico v. Saul · filed 2020-11-24(d)

At step three, the claimant is conclusively presumed disabled if she meets or medically equals a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)-(e), 416.920(d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987).

At step three, an ALJ evaluating severe migraine headaches must consider whether they medically equal Listing 11.02.

Jones v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-30(d)

That, coupled with the SSA’s above-referenced direction on analyzing migraine headaches vis à vis Listing 11.02, establishes that the ALJ erred in evaluating Petitioner’s migraine headaches at step three of the sequential process by not considering Listing 11.02.

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

Mahoney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-22(d)

Here, though, the rest of the ALJ’s opinion does not cure the minimal listing discussion. It is unclear from the ALJ’s opinion whether he overlooked the question of whether Plaintiff could not ambulate effectively for more than one year, or considered but rejected it for grounds he did not articulate.

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

Fleming v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-31(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three of the sequential process, Plaintiff carries the burden to show that he has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 1. See Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 354 (6th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (iii). ... Plaintiff has not met his burden of proving that his impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

At step three, an ALJ’s finding that a claimant does not meet a listed impairment may be upheld when substantial evidence supports it.

Riccota v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2022-08-02(a)(4)(iii)

Further the undersigned finds that the ALJ’s determination that Riccota did not meet a Listing under 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) is supported by substantial evidence.

At step three, an ALJ need not explicitly discuss a listing the claimant did not raise when substantial evidence supports an implicit finding that the impairment does not meet or equal it.

Pariseau v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-09-15(a)(4)(iii)

Because Pariseau did not raise this issue, the ALJ was not required to explicitly discuss the Listing in his decision.

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

Torres v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-25(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ failed to adequately evaluate the relevant evidence or provide sufficient rationale for the Court to determine the basis for step three findings.

At step three, an ALJ must obtain medical expertise before interpreting a potentially decisive MRI to decide whether an impairment meets a listing.

McHenry v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-26(a)(4)(iii)

Thus, the ALJ’s determination that McHenry’s condition did not meet Listing 1.04A’s requirement was not supported by substantial evidence because he failed to obtain a medical expert to review the April 2014 MRI and he rejected the only medical opinion regarding whether McHenry’s condition met Listing 1.04A.

At step three, a claimant must provide evidence that an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

LARKIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-08-20(a)(4)(iii)

The third step requires that the claimant provide evidence that his impairments are equal to at least one of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. ... In his moving brief, Plaintiff fails to provide proper citations to the record or make assertions that demonstrate that limitations caused by his obesity equate to a listed impairment.

At step three, an ALJ may find a claimant disabled if an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; the ALJ need not expressly discuss every impairment when the finding is clear from the decision.

Burgett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-08-30(a)(4)(iii)

But, that failure does not render the ALJ’s analysis incomplete in any way. Rather, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia did not equal a listing can be implied from the record and the findings.

At step three, an impairment must satisfy the applicable listing requirements to support a finding of disability.

Soto · filed 2025-11-03(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ did not address the adjustment disorder because it did not meet the requirements of a medically determinable mental impairment under step three. Tr. 19-20; See § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404 Subpt. P, App. 1 (pt. A).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) directs the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Jordan v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-27(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (the “listings”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential disability evaluation; at step four, the ALJ determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work using all relevant medical and other evidence, proceeding to step five if past work cannot be performed.

Ward v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(iv), (e)

The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step, sequential evaluation process used to determine whether a claimant is disabled: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) based on a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience. ... In determining whether [a claimant] can return to her past relevant work, the ALJ must determine the claimant's RFC using all relevant medical and other evidence in the case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). That is, the ALJ must determine if the claimant is limited to a particular work level. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567. Once the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC and determines that the claimant cannot return to her prior relevant work, the ALJ moves on to the fifth, and final, step.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequential process to decide disability claims, stopping when a finding of disability or non-disability is made; step three compares impairments with listed impairments and step five asks whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Hinson v. Saul · filed 2020-11-09(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). ... 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)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428. ... 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 establishes a five-step sequential process for deciding disability claims, including severity, listed impairments, past work, and other work in the national economy.

Deherrera v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-23(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g)

Step One determines whether the claimant is presently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If she is, disability benefits are denied. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Step Two is a determination of whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments as governed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant is unable to show that her impairment(s) would have more than a minimal effect on her ability to do basic work activities, she is not eligible for disability benefits. Id. Step Three determines whether the impairment is equivalent to one of a number of listed impairments deemed to be so severe as to preclude substantial gainful employment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If the impairment is not listed, she is not presumed to be conclusively disabled. Step Four then requires the claimant to show that her impairment(s) and assessed residual functional capacity (“RFC”) prevent her from performing work that she has performed in the past. If the claimant is able to perform her previous work, the claimant is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), (f). Finally, if the claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability based on the four steps as discussed, the analysis proceeds to Step Five where the SSA Commissioner has the burden to demonstrate that the claimant has the RFC to perform other work in the national economy in view of her age, education, and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to evaluate disability claims through five sequential steps, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four and the Commissioner bearing the burden at the final step.

Distefano v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(a)(4), (a)(4)(I), (a)(4)(ii), (c), (a)(4)(iii), (a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

Regulations issued pursuant to the 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," ... which is an impairment or combination of impairments that "significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities," ... 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. ... 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(a)(4)(i)-(v) requires the Commissioner to determine disability through a five-step sequence addressing substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and adjustment to other work.

Rousey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-01-11(a)(4)(i)-(v)

In determining whether an individual is disabled, the Commissioner must follow the five-step process required by the regulations. ... The first step is a determination of whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. ... If she is not, the second step requires determining whether the claimant has a "severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment." ... If she does, the inquiry at the third step is whether any of these impairments meet one of the listings in Appendix 1 of the regulations. ... If the claimant does not meet any of the listings in Appendix 1, step four requires an assessment of the claimant s residual functional capacity ("RFC") and whether the claimant can still perform her past relevant work given her RFC. ... If she cannot, then the fifth step requires assessment of whether, given claimant's RFC, she can make an adjustment to other work. ... If she cannot, she will be found disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation, including comparison with listed impairments, assessment of residual functional capacity and past work, and consideration of age, education, work experience, and available work at the final step.

Carnett v. Astrue · filed 2015-02-24(a)(4)(iii), (e), (a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v), (g)

The ALJ engaged in the requisite five-step sequential analysis examining disability claims. The Court shall address each step in turn. ... At step three, the ALJ considered the medical severity of Plaintiff’s impairments by comparing the impairments to those listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... The ALJ next proceeded to determine the Plaintiff’s “residual functional capacity” before moving to step four as required because Plaintiff’s impairment did not meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... Turning to step four, the ALJ considered the claimant’s “residual function capacity” and determined that he was not capable of performing his past relevant work pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). ... Finally, step five requires the ALJ to determine whether Plaintiff is capable of making a successful adjustment to gainful work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v); see also id. at § 404.1569. In making this determination, the ALJ must consider Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity assessment together with vocational factors such as Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience. Id. at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the determination of the ALJ that Plaintiff was “not disabled” under the Social Security Act from August 31, 2005 through the date of the decision, February 24, 2010, because, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, Plaintiff was capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy is both substantially supported by the evidence and based on a correct application of the relevant law.

Section 404.1520(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate a disability claim through a five-step sequential process addressing work activity, impairment severity, and the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Osborne v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-06(a)

To determine whether or not a disability exists and meets the requirements of the SSA, an ALJ evaluates a disability claim according to a five-step sequential analysis prescribed by Social Security regulations. The ALJ examines any current work activity, the severity of the claimant’s impairments, the claimant’s residual functional capacity and age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v) establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims.

Correale-Englehart v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-08(a)(4)(i)

The SSA regulations set forth a five-step sequential process to evaluate disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and, if not, whether she can perform other work in the national economy.

Spaulding v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-22

To determine if a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider the following five-step inquiry: (1) whether the claimant is currently employed, (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment, (3) whether the claimant’s impairment is one that the Commissioner considers conclusively disabling, (4) if the claimant does not have a conclusively disabling impairment, whether she can perform past relevant work, and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing any work in the national economy. ... ALJ Kraybill followed the first four steps, but did not make an explicit finding at step five.

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

Terri Dukes v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-26

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly followed the five-step sequential test of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

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

Lumb v. Astrue · filed 2010-04-05

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly followed the five-step sequential test of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520 requires an administrative law judge to use a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a claimant is disabled.

Kirk v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-15

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.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, with a finding that the claimant meets a listed impairment resulting in approval at step three.

Monroe v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-20(a)

The Commissioner analyzes a claim in five steps. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f): ... 3. Does the individual have any severe impairments that meet or equal those listed in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R. Part 404? ... A positive finding at step three results in approval of the application for benefits. ... Since the I.Q. score is valid and the other criteria of Listing 12.05C were met, Plaintiffs applications for benefits should have been approved at step 3.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, including assessing substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, past work, and other work available in the national economy.

Larlee v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-15(a)(4)

To determine whether a person qualifies as disabled, the SSA has created a five step sequential evaluation process. ... The ALJ must determine (1) whether the claimant is engaged in any substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether any jobs ... exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform given claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), age, education, and work experience.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability through five steps: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, a listed impairment, past relevant work, and other available work.

Richardson v. Astrue · filed 2010-10-03

The Social Security disability analysis follows five steps. An ALJ must consider (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment, (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a condition contained within the Social Security Administration’s official list of impairments, (4) whether the claimant has an impairment which prevents past relevant work, and (5) whether the claimant’s impairment prevents the performance of any substantial gainful employment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 1520a.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the sequential disability inquiry to stop once the Commissioner can find a claimant disabled or not disabled at a step.

Dozier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-08-16(a)(4)

An examiner must consider the following: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether she has a severe impairment; (3) whether that impairment meets or equals an impairment included in the Social Security Administration’s Official Listings of Impairments found at 20 C.F.R. Part 4, Subpart P, App. 1; (4) whether such impairment prevents claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment prevents her from doing substantial gainful employment. ... 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, ho 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 “do[es] not go on to the next step.”)

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the ALJ to evaluate disability through five sequential determinations, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or other work in the national economy.

MUSSI v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-29(a)(4)

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 or a combination of impairments that is severe; (3) whether the medical evidence of the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404 subpt. P., appx. 1; (4) whether the claimant’s impairments prevent him from performing his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is incapable of performing his past relevant work, whether he can perform any other work which exists in the national economy.

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

Costa v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-30(b) (c) (d) (e)

Disability claims are evaluated according to a five-step procedure. ... First, the Commissioner determines whether a claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” If so, the claimant is not disabled. ... In step two, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a “medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.” ... In step three, the Commissioner determines whether the impairment meets or equals “one of a number of listed impairments that the [Commissioner] acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity.” ... In step four the Commissioner determines whether the claimant can still perform “past relevant work.” ... In step five, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant can perform other work.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation, with step five asking whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy considering residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Velez-Pantoja v. Astrue · filed 2010-11-16(f)

A five-step sequential evaluation process must be applied to every case in making a final determination as to whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; ... If it is determined that the claimant cannot perform this work, then the fifth and final step of the process calls for a determination of whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy in view of the residual functional capacity, 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 disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work.

Packham v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-04(a)(4)

Social security regulations prescribe a five-step sequential analysis for evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). Under this approach, the ALJ must inquire, in the following order: (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 can perform past relevant work; and if not, (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing other work.

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

Hollins v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-24

The Commissioner is required to follow a five-step sequential evaluation process in assessing whether a claimant is disabled. ... 5. If the plaintiff has carried his burden of proof through the first four steps, at the fifth step the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform any other substantial gainful activity which exists in the national economy, considering his residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to determine disability through a five-step sequential analysis.

Antoniewicz v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-10(a)(4)

To determine disability, the Commissioner uses a five-step sequential analysis.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential analysis, considering the steps in order from substantial gainful activity through the ability to perform other work.

Griffo v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-10(a)(4)

Social security regulations prescribe a five-step sequential analysis for evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). Under this approach, the ALJ must inquire, in the following order: (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 can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing other work.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to assess disability through a five-step sequential evaluation process.

Jones v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-21

The Commissioner is required to follow a five-step sequential evaluation process in assessing whether a claimant is disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ evaluating disability to consider five inquiries: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work.

Smith v. SSA · filed 2011-05-20

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

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to determine disability through a five-step sequential evaluation process.

Sangel v. Astrue · filed 2011-05-23(a)(4)

To determine whether a claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in the regulations.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) establishes a five-step process for evaluating disability applications, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps.

Morin v. SSA · filed 2011-06-06(a)(4)

A five-step process is used to evaluate an application for social security benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The applicant bears the burden through the first four steps to show that she is disabled.

Section 404.1520(g) does not require the sequential evaluation to proceed to the fifth step when the claimant has been found able to perform past relevant work at step four.

Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-07-27(g)

Because the ALJ’s decision to deny Diaz benefit at step four was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ was not required to reach the fifth step. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). Thus, a remand is not necessary.

Section 404.1520 requires an administrative law judge to evaluate disability claims through a mandatory five-step sequential process.

Putnam v. SSA · filed 2011-08-01(a)(4)

In concluding that claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Act, the ALJ properly employed the mandatory five-step sequential evaluation process described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) establishes a five-step disability evaluation in which the claimant bears the burden through step four, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five, and the inquiry ends when a decision can be made.

Lonnie Garner v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-21(a)(4)

The Commissioner uses a five-step process to evaluate a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (2010). 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).

Section 404.1520(g) places the burden at the fifth step on the Commissioner to prove that other jobs in the national economy are available to a claimant who cannot return to former work.

Matos v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-07(g)

Disability determinations follow a “sequential step analysis” mandated by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... If the impairment is not covered by Appendix 1, the fourth step of the analysis requires that the claimant prove that his disability is sufficiently serious to preclude a return to his former occupation. If he meets that burden, the Commissioner at the fifth step is obligated to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant is able to perform.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential analysis addressing substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work.

Cook v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-12(a)(4)

A five-step sequential analysis is utilized in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). The ALJ must inquire, in the following order: (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 can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing other work.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment and duration, listed impairment, residual functional capacity and past work, and adjustment to other work.

Lazore v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-31(a)(4)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine if an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). First, the Commissioner considers whether the individual is presently working or engaged in substantial gainful activity; if so, the individual is deemed not disabled and the inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). Second, the Commissioner considers whether the individual has severe medically determinable impairments that meet the duration requirements set out by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509; if not, the individual is deemed not disabled and the inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Third, the Commissioner considers whether the medical severity of the individual's impairments meets or equals a listed impairment under Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Fourth, if the individual's impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment, the Commissioner must assess the individual's residual functional capacity and ability to do past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Fifth, if the individual is unable to engage in past relevant work, the Commissioner will assess his ability to adjust to do other work, in light of his residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate disability through a five-step sequence, considering substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other available work in that order.

White v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-24(a)(4)

A five-step sequential analysis is utilized in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). An ALJ must inquire, in the following order: (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 can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing other work.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability through five sequential inquiries: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work.

Snow v. SSA · filed 2011-10-12

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 five sequential inquiries: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work.

Dashnaw v. SSA · filed 2011-10-24

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

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

Lazore v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-31(a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine if an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). First, the Commissioner considers whether the individual is presently working or engaged in substantial gainful activity; if so, the individual is deemed not disabled and the inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). Second, the Commissioner considers whether the individual has severe medically determinable impairments that meet the duration requirements set out by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509; if not, the individual is deemed not disabled and the inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Fourth, if the individual's impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment, the Commissioner must assess the individual's residual functional capacity and ability to do past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Fifth, if the individual is unable to engage in past relevant work, the Commissioner will assess his ability to adjust to do other work, in light of his residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled, including assessment of substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other available work.

Diggs v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2011-12-07

The SSA has promulgated regulations prescribing a five-step process for evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. We have described this process as follows: ... In step one, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). If a claimant is found to be engaged in such activity, the claim will be denied. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987). In step two, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant fails to show that her impairments are “severe,” she is ineligible for benefits. ... 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). If a claimant does not suffer from a listed impairment or its equivalent, the analysis proceeds to steps four and five. Step four requires the ALJ to consider whether claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). The claimant bears the burden of demonstrating an inability to return to her past relevant work. Adorno v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 43, 46 (3d Cir. 1994). ... If a claimant is unable to resume her occupation, the evaluation moves to the final step. At this stage, the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner, who must demonstrate that 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 Commissioner must show there are other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, which the claimant can perform, consistent with her medical impairments, age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity. The ALJ must analyze the cumulative effect of all the claimant’s impairments in determining whether she is capable of performing work and is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523. ... The ALJ properly weighed the relevant evidence and adequately conducted the five-step evaluation to reach its decision.

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

Bullock v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-01(a)(4)

Regulations issued by the Commissioner establish a five-step sequential evaluation process to be followed in a disability case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. ... The ALJ properly applied the “special technique” for evaluating mental impairments. Tr. 13-14; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims using a mandatory five-step sequential process.

Shaw v. SSA · filed 2011-12-16

In reaching his decision, the ALJ properly employed the mandatory five-step sequential evaluation process described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

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.

Salazar v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-13(b)-(g)

“Social Security Regulations set out a five-step sequential process for determining whether an applicant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.” ... “(1) Is the claimant presently working in a substantially gainful activity? (2) Is the claimant’s impairment severe? (3) Does the impairment meet or equal one of a list of specific impairments described in the regulations? (4) Is the claimant able to perform any work that he or she has done in the past? and (5) Are there significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform?” ... “The claimant bears the burden of proof for the first four steps in the process. If the claimant fails to meet the burden at any of those four steps, then the claimant is not disabled.” ... “The Commissioner bears the burden of proof at step five of the process, where the Commissioner must show the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, “taking into consideration the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.””

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including severity, listed impairments, past work, and other work, with the burden shifting to the Commissioner after the claimant shows inability to perform past work.

Lynch v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-12(c), (d), (e), and (f)

The SSA Commissioner has established a five-step process for determining whether a person is disabled. ... Step two requires a determination of whether the claimant suffers from a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. ... To qualify as severe, the impairment must significantly limit the claimant’s mental or physical ability to do “basic work activities.” ... Age, education and work experience of a claimant are not considered in making the “severity” determination. ... If the impairment is severe, the next issue is whether the impairment is equivalent to one of the listed impairments that the Commissioner accepts as sufficiently severe to preclude substantial gainful employment. ... If the claimant is able to perform the previous work, in consideration of the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) and the physical and mental demands of the past work, the claimant is not disabled. ... If the claimant cannot perform his or her previous work, the final step involves a determination of whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy taking into consideration the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education and work experience. ... Throughout this process, the burden remains upon the claimant until s/he adequately demonstrates an inability to perform previous work, at which time the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate the claimant’s ability to perform other work.

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

Kendrick v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-13(a)(4)

Administrative regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation for disability determinations.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability determinations to proceed through a five-step sequential evaluation.

Smith-Marker v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-30(a)(4)

Administrative regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation for disability determinations. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

At the fifth step, when a severe impairment prevents a claimant from performing past relevant work without meeting or equaling a listed impairment, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant can perform other work.

Pacensa v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-26(e), (g)

If a claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment which, though not meeting or medically equaling the criteria in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1, prevents a claimant from performing past relevant work, the hearing officer must determine whether the claimant can do other work.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims, covering substantial gainful activity, severe impairments, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Dross-Swart v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-30(b), (c), (e), (f)

The Social Security regulations enumerate the five-step sequential evaluation to be followed when determining whether a claimant has met the burden of establishing disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ first considers whether the claimant is presently employed or “engaged in substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If she is, the claimant is not disabled and the evaluation process is over; if she is not, the ALJ next addresses whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments which “significantly limits ... physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Third, the ALJ determines whether that severe impairment meets any of the impairments listed in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 401, pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. If it does, then the impairment is acknowledged by the Commissioner to be conclusively disabling. However, if the impairment does not so limit the claimant’s remaining capabilities, the ALJ reviews the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” (RFC) and the physical and mental demands of her past work. If, at this fourth step, the claimant can perform her past relevant work, she will be found not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). However, if the claimant shows that her impairment is so severe that she is unable to engage in her past relevant work, then the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to establish that the claimant, in light of her age, education, job experience and functional capacity to work, is capable of performing other work and that such work exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, beginning with whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Currie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-06-05(a)(4)

In order to determine whether a claimant is disabled, SSA applies a 5-step sequential evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). If SSA finds that a claimant is disabled or not disabled at any step of the process, it does not proceed further with the claim. Id. At the first step of the evaluation, the claimant must show that she is not engaged in substantial gainful activity. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). A claimant who is performing substantial gainful activity is not disabled. Id. § 404.1520(b). “Substantial work activity” is work that involves doing significant physical or mental activities, and includes part-time work. Id. § 404.1572(a). “Gainful work activity” is work activity done for pay or profit. Id. § 404.1572(b). Work activity is gainful so long as it is the kind of work usually performed for pay or profit, regardless of whether a profit is actually realized. Id.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, with the Commissioner responsible at step five for showing that the claimant can perform other work.

Pollard v. Astrue · filed 2012-06-13(a)-(f)

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

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

Allen v. Astrue · filed 2012-06-22(a)(4)

A five-step sequential analysis is utilized in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). The ALJ must inquire in the following order: (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 can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable if performing other work.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires a five-step sequential analysis of whether a claimant is disabled, covering substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work.

Brent v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-17(a)(4)

A five-step sequential analysis is utilized in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). The ALJ must inquire, in the following order: (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 can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing other work.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential disability inquiry; except at step three, a negative answer ends the inquiry with a finding that the claimant is not disabled.

Fuchs v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-06

A negative answer at any point, other than step 3, stops the inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled.

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequential analysis of disability and to stop reviewing the claim once disability or non-disability is found.

Harris v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-21(a)(4)

In determining whether a person is disabled, the Commissioner is required to perform 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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through five sequential inquiries: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Miocic v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-05(a)(4)

A five-step sequential analysis is utilized in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). The ALJ must inquire, in the following order: (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 can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing other work.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability to be evaluated through five sequential inquiries: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work.

Herrera v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-19(a)(4)

A five-step sequential analysis is utilized in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). The ALJ must inquire, in the following order: (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 can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing other work.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate disability through five sequential inquiries: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work.

Gutierrez-Gonzalez v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-19(a)(4)

A five-step sequential analysis is utilized in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). The ALJ must inquire, in the following order: (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 can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing other work.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled.

Nicholson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2012-09-28

In order to determine whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ is required to perform a five-step evaluation. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Butler, 353 F.3d at 997. The claimant carries the burden of proof for the first four steps. At step one, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has been employed in substantial gainful work since the onset of his impairment. If the claimant has performed substantial gainful work, his claim will be denied. If the claimant has not performed substantial gainful work, the ALJ must determine at step two whether the claimant's impairments are medically severe. If the impairments are not severe, the claimant is not disabled. If the impairments are severe, the ALJ at step three must compare the claimant’s impairments with those in the listing of impairments promulgated by the SSA. If the claimant suffers from an impairment that meets the duration requirement and meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations, the claimant is deemed disabled and the inquiry ends. If no match exists, the ALJ must continue the evaluation. At step four, the ALJ must determine if the claimant retains any residual functional capacity, namely, the ability to do past relevant work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that the claimant is able to perform other work based on a consideration of his RFC, age, education and past work experiences. Dunham v. Astrue, 603 F. Supp. 2d 13, 17-18 (D.D.C. 2009).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to bear the burden at step five and determine, after considering the claimant’s qualifications, whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Brouillette v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-28(a)(4)(v)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled as defined under the Social Security Act. ... While the claimant has the burden of proof as to the first four steps, the Commissioner has the burden of proof on the fifth and final step. ... The final step of the inquiry is, in turn, divided into two parts. First, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s job qualifications by considering his or her physical ability, age, education, and work experience. Second, the Commissioner must determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that a person having the claimant’s qualifications could perform. ... Specifically, at Step Five the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner in showing “there is other gainful work in the national economy [which] the claimant could perform.” ... The ALJ’s failure to address these issues supports the finding that the ALJ’s determination of Step Five is not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Court remands this matter to the ALJ to provide a complete analysis of Step Five.

At step five, when a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the Commissioner must prove that the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy; otherwise the claimant is disabled.

Morrison v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-28(a)(4)(v)

Fifth, if the claimant’s RFC as determined in Step Four will not allow the claimant to perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there is other work that the claimant can do, given the claimant’s RFC as determined at Step Four, and his or her age, education, and work experience. ... The Commissioner must prove not only that the claimant’s RFC will allow the claimant to make an adjustment to other work, but also that the other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. ... If the claimant can make an adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, then the Commissioner will find the claimant is not disabled. If the claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work, then the Commissioner will find that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). At Step Five, even though the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner, the burden of persuasion to prove disability remains on the claimant.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate a disability claim using the five-step sequential evaluation without first segregating effects attributable to substance use disorders.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2013-01-10

The ALJ is required to evaluate such claims using the five step sequential evaluation described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 without segregating out any effects that might be due to substance use disorders.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential disability evaluation: substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and adjustment to other available work.

Hockensmith v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-30(a)(4), (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iii), (e), (a)(4)(iv), (g)

In determining whether a person is disabled, the Commissioner is required to perform a five-step sequential analysis. ... 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. ... If the claimant’s impairments are severe, the Commissioner, at step three, compares the claimant’s impairments to a list of impairments that are presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. ... 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.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires a five-step sequential evaluation for disability determinations.

Smiley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-02-04(a)(4)

Administrative regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation for disability determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation, defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits basic work activities, and requires the ALJ to proceed through the remaining steps once at least one severe impairment is found.

Yates v. Colvin · filed 2013-02-28(a)(4), (c)

Administrative regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation for disability determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... 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), 416.920(c). ... Accordingly, once the ALJ determines that a claimant suffers from a severe impairment, the fact that the ALJ failed to classify other alleged impairments as “severe” at Step Two does not constitute reversible error.

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability determinations to use a five-step sequential evaluation.

Dunmore v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-04(a)(4)

Administrative regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation for disability determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ evaluating disability claims involving substance use disorders to use the five-step sequential evaluation without first excluding effects attributable to substance use.

Pierson v. Colvin · filed 2013-04-26

The ALJ is required to evaluate such claims using the five step sequential evaluation described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 without segregating out any effects that might be due to substance use disorders.