20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to decide whether the claimant's residual functional capacity enables the claimant to perform past work; if so, the claimant is not disabled.

James W. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-03-23(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, the ALJ decides whether the claimant’s RFC “enables [him] to do the work [he] did in the past.” Thomas, 916 F.3d at 310; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If it does, the ALJ will find that the claimant is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

Under the sequential evaluation, a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work or other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy is disabled.

Shirley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-12-18(a)(4)(iv)-(v)

A claimant who is unable to perform past relevant work as well as any other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, after taking into account the claimant's RFC and age, education, and work experience, is disabled. ... Plaintiff meets these criteria, is therefore disabled, and remanding this case for further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose; "rather, it would merely delay the award of benefits."

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims, with an affirmative answer advancing the inquiry or producing disability at steps 3 or 5, and a negative answer generally ending the inquiry with a finding of no disability.

Cullotta v. Bowen · filed 1987-05-11

The following steps are addressed in order. (1) Is the claimant presently unemployed? (2) Is the claimant’s impairment “severe”? (3) Does the impairment meet or exceed one of a list of specific impairments? (4) Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation? (5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work within the economy? An affirmative answer leads either to the next step or, on steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the claimant is disabled. A negative answer at any point, other than step 3, stops the inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1983).

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

Zorilla v. Chater · filed 1996-02-23

Once the claimant carries the burden of proving disability by showing that her impairment prevents her employment, she has established a prima facie case and the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove the fifth step — that there exists alternative substantial gainful employment in the national economy that the claimant can perform considering not only her physical capacity but also her age, education, experience, and training.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner bearing it at step five to show that other work exists in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Horvath v. Massanari, Act. Comm · filed 2001-10-15(f)

A determination of disability is controlled by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2000), which provides a five-step sequential process under which an ALJ is to evaluate a claim. ... The ALJ correctly shifted the burden to the Commissioner to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy which Horvath could have performed during the period in question. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Hunter, 993 F.2d at 35.

At steps four and five, the regulation requires the agency to determine the claimant’s work capacity and then whether a significant number of jobs exists in the national economy, using the properly developed record.

Anderson v. Berryhill · filed 2018-02-21(a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

The uncertainty about the meaning of Dr. Western’s opinion requires a remand. Only the ALJ can decide its meaning. See Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 434–35 (7th Cir. 2000). In arguing for his interpretation, Anderson relies on Dr. Western’s August 2015 report, which the ALJ never reviewed. The agency needs to consider this new evidence and how it relates to the other evidence of Anderson’s restrictions so that it may correctly determine his capacity to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv); Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Social Security Ruling 96–8p); Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1000–01 (7th Cir. 2004). And once the agency has arrived at a revised assessment of Anderson’s restrictions, it will also need to determine whether the national economy holds a significant number of jobs for someone with his impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g)(1), 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g)(1); Villano, 556 F.3d at 563.

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, ending when a dispositive answer is reached; the claimant bears the burden through step four and the Commissioner bears it at step five.

Sabahi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-27(a)(4)

The regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Social Security provide for a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a Social Security claimant is disabled.5 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The sequential inquiry is terminated when “a question is answered affirmatively or negatively in such a way that a decision can be made that a claimant is or is not disabled.” Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 504 (9th Cir. 1990). During the first four steps of this sequential inquiry, the claimant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate disability. Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2009). At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner “to show that the claimant can do other kinds of work.” Id. (quoting Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Section 404.1520(a) governs the evaluation of an initial disability claim through a five-step sequential process.

Gray v. Apfel · filed 1999-05-07(a)

This case does not involve the reexamination of a benefits decision previously entered; instead, the ALJ’s decision involves an initial determination of benefit eligibility and the period over which the claimant was affected by the disability. Accordingly, the ALJ properly applied the five-step sequential process for determining Gray’s eligibility for benefits and correctly placed the burden of proving disability on Gray. ... This distinction in the review process is set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations. Compare 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (“When you file a claim for a period of disability . . . , we use the following evaluation process.” (emphasis added)), with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(a) (“[I]f you are entitled to disability benefits, your continued entitlement . . . must be reviewed periodically.”).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner bearing it at the fifth; a disability or nondisability finding at any step ends the review.

Rice v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-16(a)(4)

The Commissioner uses a sequential, five-step approach to determine whether the claimant is disabled. See Schofield v. Saul, 950 F.8d 315, 317 (6th Cir. 2020); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (2021). The claimant bears the burden of proof on the first four steps, and the Commissioner bears the burden on the fifth step. See Keel v. Saul, 986 F.3d 551, 555 (5th Cir. 2021). A finding that the claimant is disabled or not disabled at any point in the five-step review terminates the analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (2021).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential process that ends when a claimant is found disabled or not disabled at a step, including the substantial-gainful-activity, listed-impairment, and past-relevant-work steps.

Snee v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1987-05-08(a), (d), (e)

These regulations establish a sequential process to be applied when evaluating an individual’s claim for disability benefits. If the Secretary finds that an individual is or is not disabled at any point in the review, the evaluation process will cease.

Section 404.1520 sets out a five-step sequence for evaluating disability claims.

Toro v. Chater · filed 1996-09-10

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequence to be used in evaluating disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.

Section 404.1520 governs the sequential analysis used to determine whether a claimant seeking disability insurance benefits is disabled.

Perry v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 1998-12-31

After a thorough review of the joint appendix and administrative record, we find that the ALJ followed the proper sequential analysis. ... The sequential analysis applicable to Perry's request for disability income benefits is governed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1998).

Section 404.1520(a) ends the sequential disability review when a claimant fails to satisfy any step, so the analysis does not proceed to later steps.

Varney v. Barnhart · filed 2003-06-23(a)

If the ALJ finds that a claimant does not satisfy any step of the process, review does not proceed to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to use the prescribed five-step sequential analysis to review a disability claim, and briefly revisiting undisputed steps does not invalidate that analysis.

Baranich v. Barnhart · filed 2005-04-19

The ALJ followed the appropriate legal analysis set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 in reviewing Baranich’s claim. That the ALJ also briefly reviewed certain undisputed steps of that legal analysis does not render the ALJ’s decision-making process infirm.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated in a strict five-step sequence, and the agency may stop once a claimant is conclusively found disabled or not disabled at a step.

Ledford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-12-19(a)(4)

In analyzing Ledford’s claim for disability benefits, the administrative law judge properly utilized the five-step sequential analysis detailed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... The administrative law judge meticulously followed this sequential analysis. Indeed, such strict adherence to the order in which the factors are to be considered is necessary because once the commissioner conclusively determines, at any point in the analysis, that a claimant either is or is not disabled, the agency need not conduct any further review of the claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 establishes a sequential evaluation process for disability claims, and a finding of disabled or not disabled at any step ends the analysis.

Hernandez v. Astrue · filed 2010-05-28(a)(4)

Standards for evaluating a disability claim are set forth at 20 C.F.R. y 404.1520, which prescribes a sequential evaluation process for disability claims. A finding of þdisabledþ or þnot disabledþ at any point in the review process is conclusive and terminates the analysis. Id. y 404.1520(a)(4).

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

DiPalma v. Colvin · filed 2013-06-28

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

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

Robinson v. Colvin · filed 2015-10-05(a)

If the ALJ finds that a claimant is disabled or not disabled at any point in the sequence, review does not proceed to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential analysis and stop once a determination of disability or nondisability is made.

MILLNER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-07-25(a)

To make a disability determination, the ALJ follows a five-step sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a); see also Cruz, 244 F. App’x at 480. If the ALJ determines at any step that the claimant is or is not disabled, the ALJ does not proceed to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through sequential steps and ends the inquiry when disability can be determined at a step.

Isaacs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-29(a)(4)

These considerations are sometimes referred to as the “five steps” of the Commissioner’s disability analysis. If a decision regarding disability may be made at any step, no further inquiry is necessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (providing that if Commissioner can find claimant disabled or not disabled at a step, Commissioner makes determination and does not go on to the next step).

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential analysis and to stop once a step establishes that the claimant is or is not disabled.

GIOVENE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-12-04(a)

To make a disability determination, the ALJ follows a five-step sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a); see also Cruz, 244 F. App’x at 480. If the ALJ determines at any step that the claimant is or is not disabled, the ALJ does not proceed to the next step. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

Section 404.1520(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, but the evaluation ends when a dispositive finding is made.

Centeno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-14(a)

The social security regulations articulate a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a-f), 416.920(a-f). If the Commissioner can make a dispositive finding at any point in the review, no further finding is required. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential process for deciding disability claims and ends the inquiry when the agency can find the claimant disabled or not disabled at a step.

Briggs v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-05(a)(4)

To facilitate a uniform and efficient processing of disability claims, regulations promulgated under the Act have reduced the statutory definition of disability to a series of five sequential questions. ... These considerations are sometimes referred to as the “five steps” of the Commissioner’s disability analysis. If a decision regarding disability may be made at any step, no further inquiry is necessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (providing that if Commissioner can find claimant disabled or not disabled at a step, Commissioner makes determination and does not go on to the next step).

Section 404.1520(a) sets out the sequential steps the Secretary uses to evaluate whether a claimant is disabled.

Maddox v. Heckler · filed 1984-12-28(a)

The Secretary’s regulations, none of which have been challenged by the Plaintiff, describe the series of steps which the Secretary follows in evaluating the facts material to the disability issue. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (1984).

Section 404.1520(a) requires the administrative law judge to consider all material facts when determining disability.

Taylor v. Heckler · filed 1984-09-05(a)

It is the AU’s duty to consider “all material facts” in determining disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequential process.

Brunston v. Shalala · filed 1996-09-18

The Secretary’s regulations governing determinations of disability set forth a five-step sequential evaluation process which the Secretary must use in assessing disability claims. 20 C.F.R., §§ 404.1520, 416.920.

Section 404.1520(a) establishes a five-question sequential inquiry for determining whether an applicant is disabled.

Jenkins v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1998-06-17(a)

The social security regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f)(DIB) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)-(f) (SSI), use a five-question sequential inquiry to find out if the applicant is disabled. We will use it as a framework for analysis of this case. ... This conclusion means that ALJ Bauer correctly answered the fifth sequential inquiry affirmatively, in favor of SSA and against Jenkins. And, as this answer requires a finding of nondisability, which ALJ Bauer properly entered, it's strike three on Jenkins' last claim. Therefore, we AFFIRM.

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

Eastman v. Barnhart · filed 2003-01-23(c), (d), (e), and (f)

According to the Social Security Regulations (Regulations), a person’s claim of disability is evaluated through a sequential five-step process.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential framework for evaluating disability claims.

Garvin v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-31

The analytical framework for evaluating claims of disability is defined by regulations of the Commissioner, which set forth a five-step inquiry.

Section 404.1520 sets out a five-step sequential evaluation for determining whether a claimant is disabled.

De Jesus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-09-12

The 5-step evaluation process by which disability insurance benefits should be determined is set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

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

MacEra v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-20

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.

Section 404.1520 requires sequential disability evaluation: an impairment found non-severe at Step 2 is not evaluated further at Step 3.

Henson v. Barnhart · filed 2005-04-29(a), (c), (d)

Under administrative sequential analysis required by regulation, Step 3 analysis of any impairments that does not survive Step 2 analysis is foreclosed. When an alleged impairment is determined to be not a severe Step 2, further analysis of the impairment terminates.

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step process for evaluating disability insurance and SSI disability claims.

Cuda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-24

The Commissioner uses a five-step process, set forth in 20 C.F.R. sections 404.1520 and 416.920, to evaluate disability insurance and SSI disability claims.

Subsection (d) excludes use of the vocational guidelines when the claimant has a listed or medically equivalent impairment meeting the duration requirement, while subsection (f) treats a claimant unable to perform past work and unable to adjust to other work as disabled.

Spencer v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1982-06-09(d), (f)

In fact, the regulations require that the guidelines not be used where the claimant can be evaluated on medical evidence alone, § 200.00(a) of Appendix 2, or where the claimant suffers an impairment listed (or one determined to be the medical equivalent of one listed) in Appendix 1 of the regulations and meets the twelve months duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If the claimant has an impairment which prevents him from doing past relevant work, and is not capable of adjusting to and doing different types of work, then he is considered to be under a disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled when the claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; subsection (f) requires consideration of residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to determine whether significant jobs exist when the impairments do not meet or equal a listing.

O'Neal v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-04(d), (f)

If O’Neal’s impairments meet or equal one of the listed impairments, she is considered disabled without consideration of her age, education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). ... Should the ALJ again conclude that O’Neal’s impairments neither meet nor equal the listings, he must then consider in light of her residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience whether, prior to her 50th birthday, there were a significant number of jobs in the national economy that she could perform. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires an impairment or combination of impairments to significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, applying a de minimis threshold but requiring more than the mere presence of a condition.

Hinkle v. Chater · filed 1997-12-24(c)

At step two, the ALJ is to determine whether the claimant has an “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [his] . . . ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). We have said that this step requires a “de minimis” showing of impairment. See Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1169 (10th Cir. 1997)(citing Williams, 844 F.2d at 751). However, the claimant must show more than the mere presence of a condition or ailment. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 153 (1987)(step two designed to identify “at an early stage” claimants with such slight impairments they would be unlikely to be found disabled even if age, education, and experience were considered).

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to have an impairment that significantly limits basic work-related functions to establish a severe impairment, and permits the ALJ discretion to assess whether limitations affecting some, but not all, functions are significant.

Goodermote v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1982-09-01(c)

The basic question is whether the AU is justified in reaching a conclusion different from that of Dr. Askinazi — whether he can conclude that there are no “significant” limitations on claimant’s ability to perform work despite Dr. Askinazi’s finding that five basic work-related functions are subject to “moderate” restrictions. The regulation itself does not compel the ALJ to follow Dr. Askinazi, for it does not define “significant” in terms of a limitation of “any” basic work-related functions. Rather, it speaks of limitations of “basic work-related functions” generally and in the plural, thus suggesting that the ALJ has some discretion in evaluating the significance of an impairment that affects some,.but not all, of the ten “functions” that are listed on its psychiatric evaluation form.

Section 404.1520(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit basic work activities, but does not require the impairment to meet or equal a listed impairment.

Chico v. Richard Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-06-27(c)

A claimant clearly does not have to meet this level of severity to overcome the severity requirement of § 404.1520(c). ... A person may have a “severe” impairment under the regulations if, although not a listed impairment, it “significantly” limits his “basic work activities” under § 404.1521.

At step two, an impairment is severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; chronic recurring medically caused pain can satisfy that standard.

McGuire v. Heckler · filed 1984-07-09(c)

McGuire did not need to prove “constant, severe[,] and debilitating pain” to show her disability. Chronic and recurring pain traceable to a medical cause and significantly limiting a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities would qualify her as having a “severe” impairment for purposes of the regulations.

At step two, a claimant must have a severe impairment; an impairment that does not prevent basic work activities is not severe.

Newhouse v. Heckler · filed 1984-02-07(c)

Title 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) provides that the plaintiff must have a severe impairment in order to pass muster at that step of analysis. If plaintiff’s impairments do not prevent him/her from doing “basic work activities” then plaintiff is deemed not to have a severe impairment and finding of “not disabled” is directed.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as non-severe when it does not significantly limit basic work abilities; the court equated that standard with a slight abnormality having only a minimal effect on the ability to work, regardless of age, education, or work experience.

Thomas A. BRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1984-02-09(c)

If you do not have any impairment(s) which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled. We will not consider your age, education, and work experience. ... An impairment can be considered as not severe only if it is a slight abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as non-severe, and the claimant as not disabled at step two, when no impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the ability to do basic work activities.

Clinton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-04-10(c)

Thus, the regulation provides that a person is not disabled if he does not have an impairment (or a combination of impairments) that “significantly limit” his ability to do “basic work activities.”

Section 404.1520(f) places the step-five burden on the Commissioner to show that significant numbers of other jobs exist in the national economy that a claimant unable to perform past relevant work can perform.

Farnsworth v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-04(f)

Once it is established that a Claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Social Security Administration to establish that a significant number of other jobs are available in the national economy which the Claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

At step four, when a claimant has a severe impairment but the evidence does not establish whether the claimant can perform past relevant work, the decision-maker considers the claimant's residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of that prior work.

Dempsey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-03-11(e)

In step four of this test, if the claimant is determined to have a severe impairment, but from the evidence provided a determination cannot be made as to whether the claimant is capable of performing prior relevant work, the claimant’s “residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands” of claimant’s prior work will be considered.

After finding a significant or severe impairment, the ALJ must inquire into the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work, but the claimant generally retains the burden of producing relevant evidence.

Pitchard v. Richard Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1982-11-04(e)

To be sure, the Secretary’s regulations require the ALJ, after finding a significant or severe impairment, to inquire into the “physical and mental demands of the work [claimant has] done in the past.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1980). Claimant would have us read this regulation as requiring the ALJ to conduct his own independent investigation and dredge up relevant information concerning the claimant’s capacity to perform advertising work. We find nothing in the regulations, however, to suggest that the Secretary meant to shift the burden of production in this regard from the shoulders of the claimant to those of the ALJ. At least in usual circumstances, the burden of presenting the relevant evidence is on the claimant.

At the past-relevant-work step, § 404.1520(e) requires an ALJ to consider the mental as well as physical demands of the claimant’s past work.

Armstrong v. Sullivan · filed 1993-02-11(e)

In addition to evaluating the physical, or exertional, demands of a claimant’s past work, an ALJ must review the mental demands of the claimant’s past work. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), § 416.-920(e).

At the prior-work step, § 404.1520(e) requires the ALJ to identify the demands of the claimant’s former job and assess whether the claimant can perform its specific tasks in light of present physical capacities.

Ernest E. NOLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendan · filed 1991-08-13(e)

To determine whether [a claimant] is physically capable of returning to her former work, the administrative law judge obviously must ascertain the demands of that work in relation to the claimant’s present physical capacities, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); ... at least where, as in this case, there is evidence that the claimant’s impairments are worse today than when she was working.

Section 404.1520(e) does not require that a claimant be given a physical examination.

Yahraes v. Barnhart · filed 2003-07-30(e)

Neither regulation requires that a claimant be given a physical examination.

Section 404.1520 permits a finding that a claimant is not disabled based on medical evidence alone; if the medical evidence is sufficient, the disability inquiry should end without vocational analysis.

Murray v. Schweiker · filed 1982-12-09

Clearly, medical evidence alone can justify a finding that an individual is not entitled to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Section 404.1520(a) requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate all relevant evidence when determining whether a claimant is disabled.

Carreau v. SSA · filed 2001-05-31(a)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider and evaluate all relevant evidence in the record.

Section 404.1520 requires the Secretary to find disability when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, without proceeding to age, education, or work-experience analysis; an impairment is severe when it limits basic work activities.

Wilson v. Schweiker · filed 1982-12-15(c), (d)

If the impairment is “equal to a listed impairment”, the Secretary must conclude, as a matter of legislative mandate, that the plaintiff is disabled without evaluation of age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (1982). Therefore, within the meaning of both C.F.R. § 404.1522 and § 404.1520(d) (1982), the plaintiff would be able to stack the emphysema, abdominal aortic aneurysm, and lower back impairments if all meet the duration requirement (12 continuous months or expected to result in death) and are severe. Maladies are “severe” if the ailments prevent the claimant from doing “basic work activities”. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) & (d); § 404.1521.

Section 404.1520(d) requires disability to be found without considering age, education, or work experience when a listed impairment of sufficient duration is shown.

Mitchell v. Richard Schweiker, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-02-01(d)

The regulations state that upon a showing of a listed impairment of sufficient duration, “we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant whose impairment is expected to last at least twelve months and meets an Appendix 1 listing is found disabled without considering age, education, or work experience.

Henry F. FULTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-App · filed 1985-04-16(d)

The regulations provide that if a claimant has an impairment which can be expected to last not less than twelve months and is listed in Appendix 1, he will be found disabled without considering his age, education, and work experience.

Section 404.1520(d) provides that a claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits when the claimant has an impairment listed in the listing of impairments.

Willie Earl McSWAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-04-13(d)

A claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits if he has an impairment listed in the listing of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (1986).

Section 404.1520(d) requires the Administration to find a claimant disabled when the claimant has an impairment listed in Appendix 1.

Berestecki v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1987-06-23(d)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d), the Administration is required to find disabled an individual who has an impairment listed in Appendix 1, the Listing of Impairments.

(d) requires a claimant whose impairment meets or equals a listed impairment to be found disabled unless the claimant is working.

Heggarty v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1991-02-22(d)

A claimant whose impairment equals or exceeds an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 will be found disabled unless he is working. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

At the third step, a claimant who is not working, has a severe impairment of the required duration, and meets or equals a listed impairment is disabled without considering vocational factors.

Vick v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-05-06(d)

Third, someone who is not working, suffers from a severe impairment that has lasted for a certain time, and meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 is disabled regardless of vocational factors.

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

Adorno v. Shalala, Sec'y HHS · filed 1994-11-09(d)

The regulations promulgated by the Secretary to implement these definitions recognize that certain impairments, called listed impairments, are so severe that they are presumed to prevent a person from pursuing any gainful work without further proof of occupational disability. Campbell, 461 U.S. at 460 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (1982)). Thus, a claimant who establishes that she suffers from a listed impairment is deemed disabled without further inquiry. Id.

Section 404.1520(d) does not limit disability benefits to claimants who meet a listed impairment; claimants may qualify through vocational factors.

Dixie v. Campbell · filed 1999-03-19(d)

The appellant argues that Campbell did not qualify for permanent total disability because her injury is not one that social security considers a “listed impairment.” See 20 CFR, § 404.1520(d). This argument must fail because social security disability payments are not limited to those claimants who have a listed impairment under the social security regulations.

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as conclusively disabled when the claimant’s conditions, separately or in combination, meet or equal a listed impairment.

McClain v. Halter · filed 2001-03-22(d)

Thus, if McClain’s conditions—separately or in combination—meet or equal a listed impairment, he is conclusively disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(c) does not require reversal for failure to find a severe combination of impairments at step two when the ALJ later considers the combined effects of all impairments.

Duguay v. SSA · filed 2014-09-30(c)

The same is true of Duguay’s argument that the ALJ failed to consider whether she had a combination of impairments that is severe, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c), which, as Duguay acknowledges, “is not necessarily a reversible error if,” as just discussed, “the ALJ considered the combination of impairments and the combined effect of multiple impairments later in [his] analysis.” Contrary to Duguay’s claim, the ALJ did so.

Section 404.1520(d) treats impairments as presumptively disabling when they meet the criteria of a listed impairment.

Zagorianakos v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-25(d)

The Commissioner’s Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (effective Aug. 2, 2010), sets forth medical criteria pursuant to which impairments of various bodily systems will be considered presumptively disabling. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit basic work activities to be severe, while § 404.1520(d) permits presumptive disability when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-05-15(c), (d)

To be considered “severe” within the meaning of the regulations, an impairment or combination of impairments must significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... Under a theory of presumptive disability, a claimant may beeligible for benefits if she has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(d),416.920(d); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Gott v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-03(c)

A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Therefore, the ALJ did not err by concluding that Plaintiffs right upper extremity pain and hearing loss were not severe impairments.

The regulation requires a claimant to pass a severity screen at step two and, at step three, treats a listed or medically equivalent impairment as disabling.

Wascholl v. Saul · filed 2020-06-03(c), (d)

At step two, the ALJ is required to determine the severity of a plaintiff’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii); see also 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... “The Social Security regulations list certain impairments, any of which is sufficient, at step three, to create an irrebuttable presumption of disability. The regulations also provide for a finding of such a disability per se if an individual has an impairment that is ‘equal to’ a listed impairment.” DeChirico v. Callahan, 134 F.3d 1177, 1180 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant's ability to perform basic work activities and directs a finding of not disabled when no severe impairment is shown.

Roush v. Saul · filed 2022-01-18(c)

An impairment is deemed severe when it “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If a claimant fails to demonstrate a severe impairment, the ALJ will deem the claimant “not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). The ALJ adequately considered Roush’s non-severe impairments. (Do. 12-2, at 20-25).

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to have at least one severe impairment to pass step two of the disability evaluation.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-11(c)

To pass step two, the claimant must have at least one severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as non-severe only when it is a slight abnormality with no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

(SS) Magat v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-12(c)

At Step 2, the plaintiff must establish an impairment severe enough to significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... An impairment, or combination of impairments, can only be found to be non-severe if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. ... On this record and having carefully considered Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not presented evidence sufficient to establish that gout symptoms present more than minimal limitations on his ability to work. The ALJ did not err at Step 2 or elsewhere in the decision with respect to Plaintiff’s allegation of disabling gout symptoms.

A claimant qualifies for an automatic disability finding at the listed-impairment step only if the impairment meets the listing’s specified medical findings and severity requirements.

Bradley v. Bowen · filed 1986-09-09(d)

Social Security regulations, however, list specific medical findings, ensuring the appropriate degree of severity, which must be met if a claimant’s impairment is to qualify for appendix 1 automatic disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(d) (1985); see 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 4.01 (1985). The AU found that Bradley’s impairment was not of the necessary severity. After a careful review of the record, we find substantial evidence to support this conclusion.

An impairment is severe when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, even if it does not meet a listing.

Rubino III v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-25(c)

That means, by definition, the ALJ found asthma more than minimally limited Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work-related tasks.

At step two, an ALJ may reject an opinion that a mental impairment is severe when that opinion is internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Rowe v. Saul · filed 2022-08-18(a)(4)(ii)

When considering the opinions of Drs. Hudspeth and Fritz in their entirety, therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision to discredit their statement that Claimant had a severe impairment on the grounds that it is internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the record as a whole was reasonable.

The section treats severity as a de minimis screening requirement used only when further analysis would be pointless.

Jackson v. Heckler · filed 1984-08-24(c)

“Severity” is a de minimis requirement and has clearly been fulfilled here. It is nothing more than an administrative convenience and should be employed “only when a claim is so groundless that any analysis of the claimant’s work experience or residual functional capacity would be a waste of time.”

Meeting a listed impairment requires a finding of disability without considering whether the claimant can perform other work.

Nieves v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1985-10-23(a), (d)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) & (d), if the claimant meets a listed impairment, the Secretary is required to find a claimant disabled and not consider whether he or she could perform other work.

At step two, an impairment is not severe when it has no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Reyna v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(c)

Given the lack of treatment and insignificant objective testing results, the ALJ properly determined that the COPD was not severe.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability if the claimant’s impairment is listed in Appendix 1.

George H. CANNON, S.S. # 424-40-2854, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Def · filed 1988-11-02(d)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability if the claimant’s impairment is listed in subpart P, appendix 1.

Section 404.1520(d) establishes disability when the record shows one listed impairment; other test results cannot be weighed against it to deny the claim.

Thomas O’CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1991-10-08(d)

But the regulations do not permit a holistic judgment against the applicant. To repeat, all that the record need show is one listed impairment. Period.

Section 404.1520 treats a claimant who meets or equals a listed impairment as disabled without considering vocational factors.

Rayfield Carrier v. Louis Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1991-10-11(d)

An individual who “meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1” of the regulations will be considered disabled without consideration of vocational factors. ... That much of the reviewing physician’s determination that the AU did adopt does not contradict the findings of any examining physician and provides substantial evidence for the AU’s determination that plaintiff did not suffer from an Appendix 1 impairment.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability when a claimant’s severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, without further inquiry into the claimant’s ability to work.

Justice v. Shalala · filed 1993-11-29(d)

When an unemployed plaintiff suffers from a severe impairment which meets or equals one listed in Appendix I said plaintiff is entitled to a finding of disability per se and the inquiry need go no further.

Under the sequential evaluation, a claimant who meets a listed impairment at step three is disabled and entitled to benefits.

Cora Mae WARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant · filed 1994-07-19(a)

In short, under the federal regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), the law of the Supreme Court, Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. at 471, 106 S.Ct. at 2025, and the law of the Eighth Circuit, Cook, 797 F.2d at 691, Warren is presumably disabled and entitled to benefits.

At the listing stage, a claimant must explain how the claimed impairments are equivalent to listed impairments.

Wood v. Callahan · filed 1997-09-03(d)

Furthermore, the ALJ noted that the Plaintiffs complications were not accompanied by explanations as to how these complications are equivalent to those listed under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) as required by Bell v. Bowen, 796 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir.1986). Therefore, the ALJ was correct in giving the treating physician’s opinions minimal weight.

A claimant whose impairment meets or equals a listed impairment is conclusively disabled without a finding about the ability to perform past work or other jobs.

Richardson v. Apfel · filed 1998-10-20(d)

Conditions contained in the “listing of impairments” are considered so severe that they are irrebuttably presumed disabling, without any specific finding as to the claimant’s ability to perform her past relevant work or any other jobs.

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant whose impairment meets or equals a listed impairment as disabled without further vocational analysis.

Shaw v. Shirley S. Chater, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2000-07-20(d)

But here because the record provides overwhelming proof that Shaw suffered from a vertebrogenic disorder — one of the “severe impairments” enumerated by Listing 1.05(C) — as of March 31, 1985, rendering him “disabled” for the purposes of SSD benefits, a remand for further proceedings is unnecessary.

At step two, the claimant must show that an impairment significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Foley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-10-20(c)

Rather, Foley was required to show that his headaches significantly limited his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a).

An impairment is not severe under § 404.1520(c) if it does not significantly limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

McCants v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-03-13(c)

The administrative law judge considered ... McCants’s medical records, his accounts of his condition, and opinion evidence and reasonably determined that his gouty arthritis, osteoarthritis, chronic back pain, obesity, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hyperlipidemia, dental problems, and hypertension were not severe because they did not “significantly limit[] [his] ability to perform basic work activities.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether an impairment significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Bedasie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-17(c)

The totality of the evidence undermines the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s CTS as non-severe, requiring remand.

At step two, a claimant must show a medically determinable impairment that significantly limits basic work activity.

Greenlee v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-01(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ's determinations are supported by the medical record and the weight he afforded the medical opinions. Therefore, the ALJ's conclusion that the plaintiff's mental impairments are not severe is supported by the record as a whole.

Section 404.1520(d) treats an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment as disabling.

Crosson v. Shalala · filed 1995-10-13(d)

Thus the record adequately supports the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiffs ailments — hypertension without end-organ damage, angina, and shortness of breath — singly or in combination, did not amount to the equivalent of a “listed impairment” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits an individual's physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities.

Cardoza v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-02-12(c)

Under the Commissioner's regulations, an alleged impairment is "severe" only "if it significantly limits an individual's physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities." SSR 96-3p, 1996 WL 374181, at *1 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996) ; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two, an impairment is non-severe only if it has no effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Arteaga v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-10(c)

Stone requires a non-severe impairment to have no effect on an individual’s ability to work, not minimal limitation.

At step three, a claimant must show that an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment to establish disability on that basis.

Jaquez v. Saul · filed 2020-10-27(d)

As this was the sole evidence on which Plaintiff sought to rely, Plaintiff has not met her burden to show that her coronary artery disease is equal to a listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991) (Plaintiff has the burden of proof at Step Three of the evaluation process).

An impairment is severe at step two if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Holgersen v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-12(c)

At step two, an impairment is deemed “severe” if it “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). The only evidence of record (the opinions of Dr. Madsen and Dr. Haney) satisfy that minimum standard, and the ALJ points to no evidence to the contrary.

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

McMahon v. Saul · filed 2022-12-16(a)(4)(iii)

If a claimant has an impairment that meets the twelve-month duration requirement and meets or equals all the criteria of an impairment in the listing of impairments, the claimant is found disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... Substantial evidence thus supports the ALJ’s Step Three evaluation.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Lewis v. Kijakazi(CONSENT) · filed 2023-03-29(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” if it “significantly limits [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities”7 and persists for at least twelve consecutive months.

Section 404.1520(c) requires an impairment severe enough to significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

(SS) Paana v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-16(c)

To qualify for benefits, the plaintiff must have an impairment severe enough to significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

An ailment the claimant did not believe prevented her from working cannot be considered severe under § 404.1520(c).

Mosier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-05(c)

If Mosier herself did not believe these ailments prevented her from working, they cannot be considered severe, see 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(c) & 416.920(c), and the ALJ committed no error as to these ailments.

Section 404.1520(d) deems a claimant disabled when the claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1, regardless of age, education, or work experience.

Collord v. Heckler · filed 1986-02-28(d)

According to the Regulations, if a claimant has a disability that meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1, the claimant will be deemed disabled regardless of age, education and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Medical “equivalence” is determined by comparing the plaintiff’s symptoms, signs and laboratory findings concerning her disability with an impairment listed in Appendix 1.

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as disabled at step three when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment and the applicable duration requirement is met.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-15(d)

As the ALJ explained, step three of the sequential process for evaluating disability claims involves determining whether the claimant’s impairments “meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1” of the Social Security regulations. [AR at 16.] These “Listings” specify the criteria for impairments that are presumptively disabling. If both a Listing and a duration requirement are met, the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(d).

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

Camp v SSA · filed 2017-03-14(d)

Step three requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of those listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526.

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ at step three to rely on medical evidence without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience.

Clark v. Barnhart · filed 2003-04-22(d)

In making a step-three determination, the ALJ must rely on only medical evidence, without considering vocational factors such as age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); see also , Hargis v. Sullivan , 945 F.2d 1482, 1487 (10th Cir. 1991); Davidson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 912 F.2d 1246, 1253 (10th Cir. 1990) (addressing claim for widow’s disability benefits).

Section 404.1520(d) provides for a disability finding when a claimant has an impairment that meets a listed impairment or is equivalent to one.

Jean M. Gallagher on Behalf of Eleanor Gallagher v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-01-03(d)

The Secretary has implemented these statutory provisions with regulations that authorize a finding of disability if a person has an impairment that is included in a detailed listing of impairments, 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, Appendix 1 (1982), or is the equivalent of one of the listed impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (general disability claimants), 20 C.F.R. § 404.1578(a)(1) (widow’s disability claimants).

Section 404.1520(d) permits a claimant to be found disabled when the impairment is listed in Appendix 1 or medically equivalent to a listed impairment.

Predki v. Heckler · filed 1985-09-10(d)

Section 404.1520(d) of the Regulations provides that claimants may be found disabled if their impairments are either listed in Appendix 1, or are determined to be medically equivalent to a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (1985).

Section 404.1520(d) permits multiple impairments to be combined when their total effect is medically equivalent to a listed impairment, even if no single impairment matches the listing.

Honeysucker v. Bowen · filed 1986-12-02(d)

Under the regulations, a claimant with more than one impairment may have a combination of impairments, the total effect of which is medically equivalent to a listed impairment, even though she cannot exactly match the listing for any one.

Section 404.1520(d) requires determining whether a claimant has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment on the Secretary’s list of presumptively disabling impairments; James’s impairments met neither standard.

James ex rel. James v. Bowen · filed 1989-03-20(d)

The evidence supports the AU’s finding that although James suffered from a combination of medically severe impairments, he did not have an impairment included in the Secretary’s list of impairments presumed to be so severe that they preclude substantial gainful activity, nor are they equivalent to those listed.

Section 404.1520(d) requires the ALJ to find a claimant disabled when the claimant has a listed impairment or an impairment medically equal to a listed impairment.

Mylon L. Buck v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-03-10(d)

By regulation, the ALJ must determine if the claimant's medical condition is among those on a list of presumptively disabling impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). See also 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 (list). If a claimant's condition is so listed, or if a claimant's condition is equal to a listed impairment, the ALJ must find that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant to be found disabled when an impairment that does not meet a listed impairment is equal to a listed impairment.

Clegg v. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 1997-07-18(d)

If a claimant's impairment does not meet the criteria specified in the listings, she must be found disabled if her condition "is equal to" a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

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

Frank DeCHIRICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John J. CALLAHAN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, De · filed 1998-01-26(d)

The Social Security regulations provide that, "[i]f you have an impairment(s) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment(s), we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d) (emphasis added). Because there is no meaningful difference between complications resulting from poor prosthesis fit and complications developing for other reasons, such problems (if they cannot be resolved by the application of a suitable prosthesis that is reasonably available to the claimant) are undeniably "equal to" the other conditions specified in Listing § 1.10.

Section 404.1520(d) treats an impairment listed in Appendix 1, or medically equivalent to a listed impairment, as establishing disability at step three without regard to age, education, or work experience.

Roat v. Barnhart · filed 2010-06-07(d)

“The Social Security regulations list certain impairments, any of which is sufficient, at step three, to create an irrebuttable presumption of disability.” ... “Additionally, the regulations state that “if an individual has an impairment that is ‘equal to’ a listed impairment,” that individual is disabled regardless of his or her age, education, or work experience.”

At step three, the Commissioner must consider objective medical evidence to determine whether an impairment or combination of impairments meets or is medically equivalent to a listed impairment.

Ingianni v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-11(d)

At step three of the required five-step analysis, the Commissioner must consider the objective medical evidence to determine if the impairment or combination of impairments meets, or is medically equivalent to, the criteria of an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P (“Appendix 1”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). ... However, the ALJ’s decision is devoid of discussion as to whether Ingianni’s impairments were medically equivalent to that listing. ... The ALJ must provide a basis for determining that Ingianni’s impairments were not medically equivalent to Listing 1.06 and consider medical opinion evidence in making that determination.

At step three, the ALJ must consider whether fibromyalgia medically equals a listed impairment, either alone or in combination with another medically determinable impairment.

Perez-Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(d)

In the absence any discussion of fibromyalgia or an analysis as to whether the plaintiff’s fibromyalgia, either alone or in combination with her other impairments, medically equaled any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 of the Social Security regulations, this court cannot determine that the ALJ’s step three analysis was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, a remand is necessary.

At step three, § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) requires comparing a claimant’s severe impairments with the listed impairments and presumes disability when an impairment meets or medically equals a listing.

Hrycak v. Saul · filed 2021-08-16(a)(4)(iii)

The Commissioner must perform a five-step analysis to determine whether a person is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Plummer vy. 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. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). ... If the claimant’s impairments are severe, at step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s impairments to a list of impairments that are presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. See id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428. When a claimant’s impairment or its equivalent matches a listed impairment, the claimant is presumed disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4) (iii). If a claimant’s impairment, either singly or in combination, fails to meet or medically equal any listing, the analysis continues to step four and five. See id. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). ... Because the ALJ has not provided a sufficient explanation of his unfavorable finding of medical equivalence at step three with respect to Hrycak’s migraine headaches, I recommend that the court grant Hrycak’s motion and remand to the ALJ for further proceedings.

At step three, satisfying a listing’s frequency requirement alone does not establish medical equivalence.

Regan v. SSA · filed 2024-03-28(d)

Although it appears Ms. Regan’s headaches met 11.02’s frequency requirement, that fact does not establish equivalency on its own.

At step three, an ALJ evaluating an unlisted impairment must assess whether it equals an analogous listed impairment in severity and duration.

Nunes v. Saul · filed 2021-09-30(d)

Instead, this situation (where migraine headaches are not a specifically-listed impairment) requires that the ALJ assess whether Petitioner’s migraine headaches are equal in severity and duration to the criteria in Listing 11.02D – not that they are one and the same.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant to be found disabled without considering age, education, or work experience when the impairment meets the duration requirement and is listed in Appendix 1 or medically equals a listed impairment.

Howard v. Larry Massanari, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 1 · filed 2001-07-10(d)

Pursuant to SSA regulations, if a claimant is found to "have an impairment(s) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in Appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment(s), [SSA] will find [the claimant] disabled without considering [the claimant's] age, education, and work experience." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Appendix 1 § 12.05 lists the criteria which establish mental retardation or autism. Howard claims her mental capabilities should be considered the equal of those described in section 12.05C, "[a] valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing additional and significant work-related limitation or function." 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.05C.

Section 404.1520(d) directs that a claimant is disabled at the Listings step when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, without regard to age, education, or work experience.

Dombrowski v. Chater · filed 1997-02-24(d)

Next, plaintiff contends that he met or equaled sections 1.05C and 12.04 of the Listings and thus should have been granted benefits pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) without regard to his age, education, or work experience. ... For the reasons stated by defendant, however (Def.’s br. at 16-17), the court finds that the evidence fails to demonstrate that plaintiff has met or equaled the requirements of the Listings. Therefore, defendant’s determination to that effect (Rec. 24, 28, finding 3) is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant to be found disabled at step three when the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

James LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1996-04-09(d)

Claimants are conclusively disabled if their condition either meets or equals a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability without considering vocational factors, age, or education when a claimant meets the criteria for a listed impairment.

Wright v. Schweiker · filed 1983-01-17(d)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) and § 416.920(d), when a person meets the criteria for a listed impairment, a finding of disability shall be made without consideration of vocational factors, age or education.

A claimant whose impairment meets the duration requirement and is listed, or is medically equivalent to a listed impairment, is disabled without considering age, education, or work experience.

Warren A. BRASWELL, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Appellee · filed 1984-05-02(d)

First, the Secretary’s regulations provide that if the claimant suffers an impairment which meets the duration requirement and is listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, or is equal to a listed impairment, the claimant will be determined disabled without considering age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (1983). ... In this light, we cannot but conclude that while Braswell may not meet the formal requirements of section 11.03 in the List of Impairments to the last letter, his condition is functionally equal to that listed in section 11.03. ... Because we hold that Bras-well’s condition equals a listed impairment, and he is therefore disabled under the regulations, we need not review this finding.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a claimant who meets a listed impairment and the duration requirement, while not engaging in substantial gainful activity, to be found disabled without considering age, education, work experience, or usual work.

Mark EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1984-05-16(d)

Under this sequential evaluation process, if it is determined that the claimant is not currently engaged in substantial gainful employment and a severe impairment is present, the claimant is entitled to disability benefits if he meets the requirements of § 404.1520(d) (Appendix 1). ... “If you have an impairment which meets the duration requirement and is listed in Appendix 1, or we determine that the impairment is equal to one of the listed impairments, we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If a claimant’s condition meets the requirements of Appendix 1, and he is not engaging in substantial gainful activity, he is deemed to be disabled, and the administrative law judge is not required to determine whether the impairments prevent performance of claimant’s usual work.

Section 404.1520(d) requires a finding of disability when the claimant's impairment meets the requirements of a listed impairment in Appendix 1.

Cole v. Heckler · filed 1984-04-25(d)

Although 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) directs the finding of disability once we have determined the plaintiffs impairment meets the requirements set out in Appendix 1, we will also examine the findings made by the AU in determining that there was no disability.

Section 404.1520(d) requires disability to be found when a claimant has a physical or mental impairment listed in Appendix I, so the agency must determine whether the claimant's impairment meets the listed-impairment criteria.

Aurea APONTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES OF the UNITED STATES, Defendant · filed 1984-02-23(d)

The Secretary’s regulations provide that a claimant will be found disabled within the meaning of the Act if she has a physical or mental impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, Appendix I of the regulations.

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant who establishes an impairment listed in Appendix 1 as disabled without further inquiry into the remaining steps.

Talmadge M. BARTLETT, Sr., Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Appellee · filed 1985-11-19(d)

The regulations recognize that certain impairments are so severe that they prevent a person from pursuing any gainful work. See 20 CFR § 404.1520(d) (1982) (referring to impairments listed at 20 CFR pt 404, subpt P, app 1). A claimant who establishes that he suffers from one of these impairments will be considered disabled without further inquiry.

Section 404.1520(d) requires an automatic finding of disability, without considering age, education, and work experience, when a claimant has one of the serious impairments listed in Appendix 1.

James FLORER, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1985-11-19(d)

We reject Florer’s argument that the Secretary should have found him to be disabled under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). When a claimant has one of the serious impairments listed in Appendix 1, section 404.1520(d) requires an automatic finding of disability without considering age, education, and work experience.

Section 404.1520(d) directs the Secretary to find a claimant disabled without considering age, education, or work experience when the claimant establishes the required duration and that the condition meets or equals a listed impairment.

Frank EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-04-06(d)

Where a claimant successfully carries this burden, the Secretary will find the claimant disabled without considering the claimant’s age, education and work experience.

At step three of the sequential evaluation, § 404.1520(d) treats an impairment that meets or medically equals a listed impairment as presumptively disabling.

Wayne WINANS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant/Appellee · filed 1987-07-07(d)

The third question asks whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals the medical listings contained in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. If a claimant meets the listing or his condition is the medical equivalency, he is presumptively disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

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

Rebecca GAMBILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-07-24(d)

The regulations provide that when a claimant can show an impairment that meets the duration requirement (12 months) and is listed in Appendix 1 (the “listings”), or is equal to a listed impairment, the AU must find the claimant disabled, and should not go on to consider the claimant’s age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (1986).

Section 404.1520(d) requires the Secretary to find a claimant disabled without considering residual work capacity, age, education, or experience when the claimant validly meets a listed impairment and the durational requirement.

Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1986-07-07(d)

Therefore, if a claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity and also validly meets a listing, the Secretary must find claimant disabled without regard to residual work capacity, age, education, or experience. It is not correct under the regulatory scheme to find that a claimant satisfies a listing but is nonetheless able to work.

Section 404.1520(d) makes disability automatic when a claimant's impairment meets the requirements of a listed impairment.

Dollar v. Bowen · filed 1987-06-16(d)

If the prerequisites for one of the listed impairments had been met, a designation of disability would have been automatic pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

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

Adonis Jenkins, Jr. v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 1997-07-11(d)

If a claimant's impairment meets the durational requirement and is listed in Appendix I of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P., the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled without considering his age, education, and work experience.

At the other-work stage of the disability evaluation, the grids and vocational expert testimony can together provide substantial evidence that a claimant is not disabled.

Abshire v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1991-12-03(f)

A sequential evaluation to determine if disability insurance benefits should be awarded is outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and discussed by this Court in Garner v. Hickler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir.1984). ... In order to qualify for disability insurance benefits, Abshire must show that the findings with regard to the seventh criteria were false or unfounded. ... We find that the ALJ's factual findings are supported by the evidence and that the grids and the testimony of the vocational expert combine to constitute substantial evidence to support a finding that Abshire was not disabled.

At the fifth and last step, § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires considering residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether a claimant can adjust to other work.

Ischay v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-27(a)(4)(v)

At the fifth and last step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your age, education, and work experience to see if you can make an adjustment to other work. If you can make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are not disabled. If you cannot make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are disabled.

At step five, the Commissioner must offer evidence of jobs that the claimant can perform to establish that the claimant is not disabled.

Golembiewski v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-03-12(f)

To establish that Golembiewski was not disabled, the Commissioner needed to offer evidence of jobs that he could work.

At step five, the burden is on the ALJ to prove that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Teverbaugh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-03-31(f)

Moreover, Plaintiff is correct in her assertion that, at step five, the burden is on the ALJ to prove that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f). In order to meet that burden, the ALJ was required to ensure that there was no conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT.

At the fifth step, the Commissioner must offer evidence of jobs the claimant could work to establish that the claimant is not disabled.

Golembiewski v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2003-03-12(f)

To establish that Golembiewski was not disabled, the Commissioner needed to offer evidence of jobs that he could work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(f)(1) requires finding an applicant not disabled when sufficient jobs exist in the national economy that the applicant can perform.

D'Aurelio v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-06-06(f)(1)

But an applicant will be found not disabled, if sufficient jobs exist that he can do. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1) (1985).

Section 404.1520(f) requires the step-five analysis to determine whether a claimant has residual functional capacity for any other substantial gainful activity.

Hancock v. Barnhart · filed 2002-06-07(f)

The fifth step requires a determination of whether the claimant has “residual functional capacity (RFC) for any other substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At the fifth step, the Commission must prove that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant’s limitations.

Peterman v. Chater · filed 1996-11-05(f)

At the fifth and final step of the analysis, the burden of proof shifts to the Social Security Commission to prove that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that a person of the same age, education, past work experience, and physical and mental residual functional capacity can perform.

Subsection (f) requires the Secretary to determine whether a claimant who cannot perform past work can perform other gainful and substantial work in the economy, considering the claimant’s age, education, and work experience.

Denson v. Bowen · filed 1988-03-15(f)

This court having determined that plaintiff is incapable of performing his past work and that plaintiff cannot perform light work, it becomes incumbent upon the Secretary to determine whether plaintiff, considering his age, education and work experience, can perform other gainful and substantial work within the economy.

Section 404.1520(f) allows a claimant who does not meet or equal a listed impairment to receive benefits if the claimant cannot perform substantial gainful employment available in substantial numbers in the national economy.

Cintron v. Bowen · filed 1988-05-26(f)

Even if the Secretary determines that the claimant does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the claimant may still recover if he is unable to perform “substantial gainful employment” as exists in sustantial numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(f) treats a claimant who cannot perform sedentary work as unable to perform any other work and therefore disabled.

Atkins v. Bowen · filed 1988-06-27(f)

Since the plaintiff is incapable of performing sedentary work as defined in the HHS regulations, she is unable to perform any other work under section 404.1520(f) of the regulations and is therefore disabled and entitled to benefits.

Section 404.1520(f) requires the Secretary, at step five, to show that a claimant who cannot perform past work can perform a full range of work at a residual functional capacity level.

Poindexter v. Bowen · filed 1988-02-19(f)

Because Leland Poindexter cannot perform his past work, the Secretary must show that he can perform a full range of work at a residual functional capacity level. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Subsection (f) is the final step of the sequential process, requiring consideration of a claimant’s ability to perform other work based on residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Alvin R. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appelle · filed 1988-11-16(f)

At issue here is the final step of the five-part process in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f), involving a claimant’s ability to do other work. The Secretary has the burden to show that Harrell’s residual functional capacity, age, education and work experience allow him to perform work in the national economy.

At step five, § 404.1520(f) shifts the burden to the Secretary to establish that the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.

Glen W. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appelle · filed 1988-04-19(f)

Thus, the claimant is entitled to benefits if the Secretary cannot establish that the claimant retains the capacity “to perform an alternative work activity and that this specific type of job exists in the national economy.”

At step five, the Secretary considers the claimant’s age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity to determine whether the claimant can perform other work.

Simms v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1989-06-27(f)

If the claimant makes the step four showing, then the Secretary, at step five, considers the claimant’s age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity to determine if he can do “other work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.-920(f).

At the fifth step, once a claimant has a severe impairment preventing return to previous work, the Secretary must prove that the claimant can perform other jobs existing in the national economy.

Victor M. ORTIZ, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1989-11-29(f)

As noted above, under the final test in the five-stage sequential analysis, once a claimant has demonstrated a severe impairment that prohibits return to his previous employment, the Secretary has the burden of proving the existence of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (1988).

At the final step, the regulation requires a finding of no disability when a significant number of jobs exists in the economy that accommodates the claimant's limitations, including a sit/stand option.

Carolyn D. KELLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1989-12-05(f)

The Secretary’s vocational expert testified at the administrative hearing that there were a significant number of jobs available in the economy which offered a sit/stand option. Under the Act and the Secretary’s regulations, that fact requires a finding of no disability.

At step five of the sequential evaluation, when a claimant cannot perform past work because of severe impairments, the Secretary considers the claimant’s functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to determine whether the claimant can do other work.

Joseph JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-A · filed 1990-01-12(f)(1)

Regulations set forth by the Secretary prescribe that disability claims should be evaluated according to a sequential five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1986). Step five of that process is at issue in this case. Under step five, where a claimant is unable to perform work done in the past because of severe impairments, the Secretary will consider the claimant’s functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to determine if he or she can do other work. Section 404.1520(f)(1).

At step five, once a claimant is shown unable to perform past work, the Secretary must prove that other work exists that the claimant can perform despite her health problems.

Joyce KOURIL, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1990-08-29(f)

The burden now shifts to the Secretary to prove that available work — work that Mrs. Kouril can perform in spite of her health problems — exists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At the step for determining whether a claimant can perform other work, the Secretary must consider the claimant’s qualifications and available matching jobs and prove that the claimant retains the capacity to perform a different kind of job.

Joseph MOON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1990-10-22(f)(1)

The Secretary must prove that, taking into consideration present job qualifications such as age, experience, education, and physical capacity, and the existence of jobs to match those qualifications, the claimant retains the capacity to perform a different kind of job.

At the step where a claimant cannot perform previous work, § 404.1520(f) places on the Secretary the burden to show that the claimant can perform other substantial gainful employment existing in the national economy.

Brooks v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1991-08-14(f)

As previously discussed, when the Secretary finds that plaintiff can no longer perform his previous work, the Secretary has the burden of showing that plaintiff can perform other substantial gainful employment and that such employment exists in the national economy.