20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

At Step 5, if a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the sequential evaluation is incomplete until the Secretary shows that the claimant can perform other work in the economy.

Morin v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1992-04-10(f)

However, assuming arguendo (in spite of some evidence to the contrary) that the ALJ stopped his analysis at Step 4, as he arguably did, then the sequential process has not been completed. Because the court has found that claimant cannot return to her past work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show that there are jobs in the economy that claimant can perform.

At step five, once a claimant cannot return to past work, the Secretary must show that the claimant can perform other work available in the national economy.

Hernandez-Torres v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-07-17(f)(1)

Since the ALJ found that appellant's condition precluded a return to his past work, the Secretary bore the burden of showing that appellant retained the capacity to perform a different kind of job available in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1); Rosado v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 807 F.2d 292, 294 (1st Cir. 1986).

The regulation's sequential evaluation treats failure to meet a listed impairment at step three as insufficient by itself, and at step five asks whether the claimant can perform other work considering age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity.

Farhat v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1992-07-24(d), (f)

In applying the test set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1991), the ALJ found for Farhat on three of the factors. 2 As to factor three, substantial evidence indicated that Farhat's infrequent seizures alone were not sufficient to qualify him as "disabled" under the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt., P, App. 1, §§ 11.02, 11.03. The only question, then, is whether Farhat could perform other work given his age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (factor five).

At step five, § 404.1520(f) requires the Secretary to assess a claimant’s physical ability, age, education, and work experience and determine whether work exists in the national economy that someone with those qualifications can perform.

Harold MASON, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Appellee · filed 1993-06-01(f)

The fifth step is itself divided into two parts: First, the Secretary must assess each claimant’s present job qualifications. The regulations direct the Secretary to consider the factors Congress has identified as relevant: physical ability, age, education, and work experience. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 CFR § 404.1520(f) (1982). Second, she must consider whether jobs exist in the national economy that a person having a claimant’s qualifications could perform. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1566-404.1569 (1982).

At step five, once a claimant shows that she cannot perform past relevant work, the regulation requires the Secretary to determine whether she can perform other work in the national economy, with the burden on the Secretary to make that showing.

Rosenboom v. Shalala · filed 1993-06-30(f)

If the claimant is unable to perform work performed in the past, the Secretary proceeds to the fifth and final step to determine if the claimant can perform other work in the national economy in light of his age, education, and work experience. The claimant is entitled to disability benefits only if he is not able to perform other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f) (1992). If the claimant shows an inability to perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Secretary to show what gainful work activities are within the claimant’s capabilities. ... Thus, the burden is now properly on the Secretary to show that there is other work which plaintiff is capable of performing. ... Thus, this case will be remanded to the Secretary for development of the record and a decision in accordance with step'five of the evaluation process appropriate in this type of case.

Section 404.1520(f) places the step-five burden on the Secretary to show that a claimant who cannot return to past work can perform other substantial gainful work, considering residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Homer PENNY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1993-08-16(f)

At step five of the sequential analysis, once a claimant has proven that his physical impairment prevents a return to his previous occupation, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show that the claimant can engage in other types of substantial gainful work that exist in the national economy. ... The Secretary must consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors such as age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f) (1989).

Section 404.1520(f)(1) requires a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work to also be unable to perform other work to be found disabled.

Martin v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-10-22(f)(1)

The ALJ concluded that Martin was "unable to perform his past relevant work as a carpenter." A claimant who is unable to perform his past relevant work will be found to be disabled only if he is unable to perform other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1). Martin argues that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's further determination that Martin is not disabled because he is capable of other work. However, a vocational expert (VE) who attended Martin's disability hearing testified that Martin would be able to work as a warehouse worker, a light packager, or a visual inspector, and that such jobs are available in significant numbers in the Los Angeles area. This evidence is sufficient to support the ALJ's determination.

Section 404.1520(f) requires the Secretary to evaluate a claimant who cannot return to past work using residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.

Flecha v. Shalala · filed 1994-06-23(f)

If a claimant is unable to perform her past work, the Secretary is to consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity and her age, education, and past work experience to determine if she can perform other work in the national- economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). In establishing that the plaintiff is able to perform other work in the national economy, the Secretary bears the burden of proof.

At step five, the Secretary must consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity to decide whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy, and bears the burden of proving that the claimant can do so.

Davis v. Shalala · filed 1995-03-31(f)

In performing the fifth step of the five-step disability evaluation set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, the Secretary must consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity, among other things, to determine if the claimant can do any other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). It is the Secretary’s burden of proof in the fifth step to show that the claimant can do other work.

At the fifth step, § 404.1520(f) requires the Secretary to determine whether the claimant can perform a significant number of jobs by considering residual capacity, work experience, age, and education.

Jimenez v. Shalala · filed 1995-03-29(f)

Thus the issues focus on the fifth step of the process where the Secretary has the burden of showing Jimenez can perform a significant number of jobs in the national or regional economy. ... To meet this burden the Secretary reviews Jimenez’ residual capacity, past work experience (skills), age and education. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner, at Step Five of the sequential evaluation, to show that the claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Field v. Chater · filed 1995-07-10

The burden shifted at Step 5 to the Commissioner, who was required to adduce evidence that there is a significant number of jobs in the national economy capable of being performed by the plaintiff.

Section 404.1520 shifts the burden to the Commissioner to show that a claimant who cannot return to past work can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Serody v. Chater · filed 1995-09-14

As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the ALJ found that plaintiff established that he could no longer perform his prior work as a fire fighter or fire fighting captain. The burden then shifted to the Commissioner to establish that other jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. In determining whether an individual is able to engage in substantial gainful activity, an ALJ must consider an individual’s age, education, work experience and the availability of specific appropriate jobs in the national or regional economy.

At step five of the sequential disability analysis, the Commissioner must show that a claimant who cannot return to past relevant work can still perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy and in the region where the claimant lives.

Tardnugo v. SSA · filed 1996-02-27(f)

At step five, the Commissioner has the burden of showing that despite the severity of the claimant's impairment and inability to return to past relevant work, he retains the RFC to perform other occupations that exist in significant numbers in the national economy and in the region where he lives.

At step five, § 404.1520(f) places on the Commissioner the burden to show that a claimant's residual functional capacity permits work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Hughes v. Chater · filed 1996-06-19(f)

At the fifth step, the burden is on the Commissioner to prove that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform, given his (or her) residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At the fifth step, the Commissioner must show that, considering the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, the claimant retains residual functional capacity for gainful work existing in significant numbers in the regional economy.

Scales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-06-20(f)

Evaluating whether an individual is eligible for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits based on disability involves a five-step process. See Wyatt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 974 F.2d 680, 683-84 (6th Cir.1992). The parties agree that Scales is eligible under the first four steps of this process. The dispute here therefore centers on whether the Commissioner of Social Security has carried the burden of proving that, taking into account age, education, and work experience, Scales retains the "residual functional capacity" to engage in gainful work that exists in significant numbers in the regional economy. If the Commissioner has not carried this burden, Scales is considered disabled and is eligible for benefits. Id. at 684; 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

Section 404.1520(f) requires considering a claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to determine whether the claimant can perform other work; the grids may be used when non-exertional limitations do not affect sedentary capacity.

Holdsworth v. Shalala · filed 1996-06-25(f)

Having determined that Mr. Holdsworth was severely injured and was unable to return to his previous line of work, the judge then had to consider Mr. Holdsworth's "residual functional capacity and [his] age, education, and past work experience to see if [he] can do other work." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... If the claimant's non-exertional limitations, however, do not affect his ability to perform sedentary work then use of the grids is appropriate.

At the step concerning ability to perform other work, once a claimant cannot perform past work, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant can perform other substantial gainful activity.

Wilson v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-09-27(f)

Because Wilson satisfied the ALJ that he could no longer perform his past work, the burden shifted to the Commissioner to show that he could perform other substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.945 (1996).

At step five, § 404.1520(f) places on the Commissioner the burden of showing that a claimant who cannot return to past relevant work can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national and regional economies.

Planner v. SSA · filed 1996-09-26(f)

At step five, the Commissioner has the burden of showing that ... despite the severity of the claimant's impairment and inability to return to past relevant work, she retains the residual functional capacity to perform other occupations that exist in significant numbers in the national economy and in the region where she lives. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Keating v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 276 (1st Cir. 1988) .

At step five, the Commissioner must show that a claimant who cannot perform prior work retains the capacity for other work that exists in significant numbers in the national and regional economies.

Ingram v. SSA · filed 1997-01-27(f)

At the fifth step of the sequential analysis, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that despite the claimant's severe impairment, he retains the residual functional capacity to do work other than his prior work and that work the claimant can do exists in significant numbers in the national and regional economies. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Keating v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 276 (1st Cir. 1988) .

At the fifth step of disability review, § 404.1520(f) requires considering age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity when an impairment prevents a claimant from returning to past work.

Bryant v. Shirley Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1997-04-04(f)

The crux of this appeal, therefore, rests on step number five of the sequential test: If one's impairment is so severe that she cannot do the same work she has done in the past, then other factors must be considered, including age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). Judge Lazzaro determined that Bryant could not return to her job as a nursing assistant, but concluded that she could do some type of sedentary work.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform work other than past work and that such work exists in significant numbers in the national and regional economies.

Lopez v. SSA · filed 1997-05-09(f)

At the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that despite the claimant's severe impairment, he retains the residual functional capacity to do work other than his prior work and that work the claimant can do exists in significant numbers in the national and regional economies. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Keating v. Secretary of H .H .S ., 848 F.2d 271, 276 (1st Cir. 1988).

Section 404.1520(f) requires the government at step five to prove that the claimant can perform work existing in the national economy; if the claimant cannot, disability must be found.

Schonewolf v. Callahan · filed 1997-08-22(f)

At step five, however, the government does not meet its burden. The government must prove that a claimant can perform some work that exists in the national economy. ... If the claimant is incapable, a finding of disability will be entered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (1997). There exists substantial evidence in the record to indicate plaintiff cannot even perform sedentary work, the least physically demanding type of work that a person may perform according to the C.F.R.’s.

At the fifth step, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that a claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers; when a nonexertional limitation significantly affects the work range, the Grid cannot by itself establish disability status.

Marcotte, Jr. v. SSA · filed 1997-09-30(f)

On appeal, Marcotte challenges the ALJ's determination, made at the fifth step of the seguential analysis, that he was not disabled during the relevant period. ... At the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that despite the claimant's severe impairment, he retains the residual functional capacity to do work other than his prior work, and that work the claimant can do exists in significant numbers in the national and regional economies. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); ... The Grid is an appropriate shortcut at the fifth step only if a nonexertional impairment, such as a psychological disorder, does not significantly affect the claimant's range of work ability. ... Thus, the Grid was not an appropriate basis for determining that Marcotte was not disabled.

At step five, § 404.1520(f) places on the Commissioner the burden of showing that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers.

Marcotte v. Callahan · filed 1997-09-30(f)

At the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that despite the claimant’s severe impairment, he retains the residual functional capacity to do work other than his prior work, and that work the claimant can do exists in significant numbers in the national and regional economies.

At step five, § 404.1520(f) places on the Commissioner the burden to show that a claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national and regional economies.

Swanick v. SSA · filed 1998-05-18(f)

At the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that despite the claimant's severe impairment, he retains the residual functional capacity to do work other than his prior work, and that work the claimant can do exists in significant numbers in the national and regional economies. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); Keating v. Secretary of H.H.S., 848 F.2d 271, 276 (1st Cir. 1988).

Section 404.1520(f) shifts the burden to the Commissioner, after a claimant cannot perform past work, to establish that the claimant can perform other work existing in the national economy in light of the claimant's age, education, work experience, and functional capacity.

Hanson v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, 1 · filed 1998-07-28(f)

After the ALJ found that Hanson was not capable of performing his past work, the burden of proof shifted to the Commissioner to establish that Hanson was capable of performing other work that exists in the national economy, considering his age, education, work experience, and functional capacity. Brewer, 103 F.3d at 1391 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)).

At step five, the Commissioner must consider a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to establish that the claimant can perform other work available in the national economy.

Kerns v. Apfel · filed 1998-11-16(f)(1)

The Commissioner must consider a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to prove that a claimant can perform other work available in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1).

Step five requires the ALJ to consider the claimant’s age, education, and work experience and determine whether the claimant can perform work available in significant numbers in the national economy.

Townsend v. Apfel · filed 1999-04-27(f)

Step five requires the ALJ to determine if, considering age, education, and work experience, the claimant can perform work available in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

At step five, § 404.1520(f) requires consideration of the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, and provides for disability when those factors show the claimant cannot perform other work.

Hodes v. Apfel · filed 1999-09-01(f)

The regulations provide that an ALJ’s determination in step five should take into account the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. Upon consideration of these factors, the claimant is disabled only if he cannot perform other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

Section 404.1520(f) places the burden on the Commissioner at step five to show that a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Crosby v. Apfel · filed 1999-12-09(f)

However, if the Claimant shows that his impairment is so severe that he is unable to engage in his past relevant work, then the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to establish that the Claimant—in light of his 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(f) permits a claimant who cannot return to past relevant work to be found not disabled when vocational evidence shows the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Daniels v. Apfel · filed 2000-03-22(f)

Based on VE testimony, and also considering rules 201.18 and 201.19 of the guidelines as a framework, the ALJ found Plaintiff can perform other work in the national economy and is therefore not disabled (Tr. 26, 27 Finding no. 6). 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, Table No. 1, rules 201.18, 201.19. The ALJ consequently found Plaintiff is not entitled to a period of disability or disability insurance benefits (Tr. 28). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... The undersigned finds that the record shows the ALJ properly considered the testimony of the VE and found Plaintiff capable of performing work which exists in significant numbers in the national economy and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.

At step five, § 404.1520 places the burden on the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other jobs in the national economy; vocational-expert testimony may be used only with a hypothetical that accurately reflects the claimant's functional limitations.

Searles v. SSA · filed 2000-10-13(f)

Once a claimant proves that he is incapable of returning to his prior jobs, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to come forward with evidence of specific jobs in the national economy that the claimant is capable of performing. See Arocho v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 670 F.2d 374, 375 (1st Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). The Commissioner can meet his burden of proof on this issue by relying on the testimony of a VE, but in order to be entitled to rely on the V E 's answer, the ALJ must pose a hypothetical question to the VE which accurately reflects the claimant's functional limitations.

At step five, § 404.1520(f) shifts the burden to the Commissioner to identify jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform, and permits use of vocational-expert testimony only when based on an accurate hypothetical reflecting the claimant’s functional limitations.

Wright v. SSA · filed 2000-10-13(f)

Once a claimant proves that he is incapable of returning to his prior jobs, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to come forward with evidence of specific jobs in the national economy that the claimant is capable of performing. See Arocho v . Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 670 F.2d 374, 375 (1st Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (2000). The Commissioner can meet his burden of proof on this issue by relying on the testimony of a VE. See Rose v . Shalala, 34 F.3d 1 3 , 19 (1st Cir. 1994); Berrios Lopez v . Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 951 F.2d 427, 429-30 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam). In order to rely on the VE's testimony, however, the ALJ must pose to the VE a hypothetical question that accurately reflects the claimant’s functional limitations. See id.

Section 404.1520(f) places the burden on the Commissioner at Step Five to show that a claimant can perform other substantial gainful work existing in the national economy, using vocational-expert testimony or the Medical-Vocational Guidelines as appropriate.

Osenbrock v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2001-03-02(f)

Claims of disability are evaluated under a five-step sequential procedure. See 20 C.F.R. S 404.1520(a)-(f). At issue in this appeal is whether the Commissioner has sustained his burden of showing, at Step Five, that, in light of Mr. Osenbrock's residual functional capacity, he can engage in other substantial gainful work that exists in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. S 404.1520(f). There are two ways for the Commissioner to meet his Step Five burden: (1) the testimony of a VE; or (2) by reference to the Medical Vocational Guidelines at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 1999). Where the claimant has significant non-exertional impairments, however, the ALJ cannot rely on the Guidelines. See Desrosiers v. Secretary of HHS, 846 F.2d 573, 576-77 (9th Cir. 1988). Where the testimony of a VE is used at Step Five, the VE must identify a specific job or jobs in the national economy having requirements that the claimant's physicaland mental abilities and vocational qualifications would satisfy. 20 C.F.R. S 404.1566(b); see Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1340 n.3 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, the ALJ relied on the testimony of a VE that Mr. Osenbrock can perform the duties of a timekeeper in concluding that the Commissioner met his burden of showing that Mr. Osenbrock was capable of performing substantial gainful work that exists in the national economy.

At the fifth step, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s qualifications and determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Bellamy v. Apfel · filed 2001-05-01(f)

Under the fifth step of the sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to 1) assess the claimant’s present job qualifications considering physical ability, age, education, and work experience, and 2) consider whether jobs exist in the national economy which the claimant could perform.

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of producing evidence that the claimant can perform other available work in the national economy.

Portlock v. Apfel · filed 2001-07-03(f)

At step five, the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner, who must demonstrate that the claimant is capable of performing other available work in the national economy in order to deny a claim of disability.

Step five requires the ALJ to determine whether, considering a claimant's age, education, and work experience, the claimant can perform work available in significant numbers in the national economy.

Egas v. Massanari · filed 2001-07-06(f)

Step five requires the ALJ to determine if, considering age, education and work experience, the claimant can perform work available in significant numbers in the national economy.

At step five, the regulation requires the ALJ to consider the claimant's age, education, and work experience and determine whether the claimant can perform work available in significant numbers in the national economy.

Connour v. Massanari · filed 2001-11-09

First, step five requires the ALJ to determine if, considering age, education and work experience, Connour could perform work available in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Even assuming that the vocational expert did not testify concerning Connour’s skills and did not adequately mention which of these skills were transferable to the semi-skilled jobs that she indicated he was able to perform, the vocational expert nevertheless identified several unskilled jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy which Connour could perform and which did not require any transferable skills. Specifically, she listed counter attendant (62,890), airline service representative (38,457), messenger (7,298), deli counter attendant (10,485), cashier (126,860), packer (18,704) and housekeeper (41,120). These unskilled positions alone constitute jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy sufficient to satisfy the Commissioner’s step five burden.

At the fifth step, the Commissioner considers a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to decide whether the claimant can perform other work.

Howard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-01-11(f)

The ALJ determined that the first four parts did not entitle Howard to disability benefits, so this case turns on the fifth: if Howard’s impairment prevents her from doing past work, the Commissioner will consider her RFC, age, education and past work experience to determine if she can perform other work. If she cannot perform other work, the Commissioner will find her disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

Section 404.1520(f)(1) directs the Commissioner at step five to consider the claimant’s age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity in determining whether the claimant is capable of work.

Nance v. Barnhart · filed 2002-03-22(f)(1)

The Commissioner considers the claimant’s age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity to determine whether the claimant is capable of work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1).

At step five, the Commissioner must show that despite a severe impairment, the claimant can perform work other than prior work that exists in significant numbers in the relevant economies.

Rallis v. SSA · filed 2002-03-29

At step five, the Commissioner has the burden to show that despite the applicant's severe impairment, she retained the residual functional capacity to do work other than her prior work and that work the claimant can do exists in significant numbers in the relevant economies.

At step five, § 404.1520(f) considers a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work to determine whether the impairments prevent other work in the national economy.

Johnson v. Barnhart · filed 2002-10-24(f)

Fifth, if a claimant’s impairments (considering her residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work) prevent her from doing other work that exists in the national economy, then she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... Because the ALJ properly determined that Plaintiff could perform a full range of sedentary work, his exclusive reliance on the grids at step five was justified.

At the step-five inquiry, when impairments prevent a claimant from performing past relevant work, the claim must be evaluated using age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity to determine the ability to perform other work.

Hensley v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2003-07-02(f)

In a situation like Hensley’s, where the claimant’s impairments prevent him or her from performing his or her past relevant work, the claim must be considered in light of several vocational factors (age, education, and work experience) and the individual’s residual functional capacity.

At step five, § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work, and the ALJ may rely on the grids only after addressing limitations that could require vocational-expert testimony.

Phillips v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-23(a)(4)(v)

If the ALJ determines that Phillips’s nonexertional limitations do not significantly limit her basic work skills at the sedentary work level, then the ALJ may rely on the grids to determine if Phillips is disabled. If, however, the ALJ determines that Phillips nonexertional limitations significantly limit her basic work skills at the s edentary work level, then the AL J must co nsult a vo cational ex pert.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that work exists that accommodates the claimant's residual functional capacity after the claimant cannot perform past relevant work.

Downey v. Barnhart · filed 2003-12-09(f)

The ALJ failed to complete the fifth step: to meet his burden of showing that work exists that accommodates Plaintiffs residual functional capacity.

At the fifth step, the Commissioner must determine whether, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, the claimant can perform other work with little, if any, vocational adjustment.

Stone v. Barnhart · filed 2004-04-27(a)(4)(v)

What separates this fifth inquiry from the fourth is its consideration of adjustment to “other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If it were an inquiry into identical work it would collapse into the fourth. Of course differences will exist between the jobs. The question, however, is whether, given the plaintiffs age, educational background, work experience, and RFC, she is able to perform these jobs with little, if any adjustment. Slight adjustments, such as those highlighted by the plaintiff, will not affect this calculus. As such, the court finds the plaintiffs argument unconvincing.

Section 404.1520(f) places the step-five burden on the Commissioner to show, with substantial evidence, that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Bagwell v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-08(f)

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

At step five, the Commissioner must show that work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant's impairments, age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity; no separate showing that the claimant can compete with other workers is required.

Grandillo v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-07-30(f)

Finally, in step five the Commissioner considers whether work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform given his medical impairments, age, education, past work experience, and “residual functional capacity.” If so, the claimant is not eligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). In this final step, “the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner, who must demonstrate the claimant is capable of performing other available work in order to deny a claim of disability.” ... In light of clear statutory language, we will not saddle the Commissioner with making a showing that the applicant is unable to compete with other workers for the jobs for which a he is qualified.

Section 404.1520(f) requires the Step 5 inquiry into whether a claimant, considering residual functional capacity and vocational factors, can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Ordewald v. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-05(f)

Plaintiff argues that once the Administrative Law Judge had found that she was disabled for some period of time prior to the termination of insured status, the government possessed the burden under Step 5 of the sequential disability analysis, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f), to go forward with evidence to establish the existence of alternate work roles which she could be expected to perform. ... It appears to the court that the Law Judge was quite scrupulous in undertaking the appropriate inquiry required under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... In short, the court finds no fault with the Law Judge’s application of the sequential disability analysis.

Section 404.1520(a) requires the ALJ, at step five after finding that the claimant cannot perform past work, to determine whether the claimant can perform other work that exists in the national or regional economy.

Fast, Peggy A. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2005-02-02(a)

At step five of the sequential analysis, an ALJ must determine (taking into account the step four finding that the claimant can no longer perform her past work) whether the person can do any other work that exists in the national or regional economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (4)(v), (e); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v), (e).

Section 404.1520(f) shifts the burden to the Commissioner at the fifth step to show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s limitations and vocational factors.

Horodenski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-02-07(f)

If the claimant is unable to resume her former occupation, the evaluation moves to the fifth and final step. At this stage, the burden of persuasion shifts to the Commissioner, who must demonstrate the claimant is capable of performing other available work in order to deny a claim of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). The 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. ... For these reasons, we hold that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that there were sufficient jobs in the national economy during the late 1970’s that Horodenski could have performed notwithstanding her limitations.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work existing in the national economy, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity; nonexertional limitations require vocational evidence rather than mechanical reliance on the grids.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-02-22(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant can perform other work which exists in the national economy, in light of her age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... In light of Hall’s nonexertional limitations, on remand the ALJ will not be permitted to rely on the grids to dictate a finding of not disabled, but may only use the grids as a framework to guide the disability determination.

At step five, § 404.1520(f) requires the Commissioner to consider a claimant’s physical ability, age, education, and work experience and determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Stevens v. Barnhart · filed 2007-02-13(f)

The final step of this inquiry is, in turn, divided into two parts. First, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s job qualifications by considering his 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.

At the fifth step, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s job qualifications and determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Burger v. Barnhart · filed 2007-02-27(f)

The final step of this inquiry is, in turn, divided into two parts. First, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s job qualifications by considering his 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.

At step five, the regulation requires considering the claimant's residual functional capacity and other relevant factors to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Yensick v. Comm Social Security · filed 2007-08-16(a)(4)(v)

If Yensick’s RFC changes because of Dr. Sepesky’s opinions, the ALJ will be required to reexamine his conclusion achieved at step five of the analysis promulgated by the Social Security Administration: whether work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that Yensick can perform given his medical impairments, age, education, past work experience, and RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) (“At the fifth and last step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity [and other factors] to see if you can make an adjustment to other work.”).

Section 404.1520(f)(1) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience when deciding whether the claimant can perform other work.

Shinaberry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2008-03-07(f)(1)

The ALJ must consider the claimant’s RFC, “age, education, and past work experience to see if [he] can do other work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f)(1), 416.920(f)(1).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) uses the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can do any work.

Rivera v. Comm Social Security · filed 2008-05-21(a)(4)

The standard the ALJ did apply was whether “the claimant is able to do any . . . work considering her residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.” (App. 25.) This is a correct statement of the law. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

At step five, § 404.1520(g) requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Dismuke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-02-05(g)

If, however, the claimant satisfies this burden, then the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner to show, at step five, that “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.” Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428. This step requires the ALJ to consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to determine whether the cumulative effect of all of the claimant’s impairments renders her capable of working. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform other work that exists in the national economy.

Vesy v. Astrue · filed 2009-11-17(g)

As noted above, under step five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is able to perform other work that exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). If the ALJ finds that the claimant is able to perform other work, he “must articulate specific jobs that the claimant is able to perform, and this finding must be supported by substantial evidence, not mere intuition or conjecture.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th Cir. 2002).

Section 404.1520(f) directs the Commissioner, at the fifth step, to consider a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience in determining whether the claimant can perform other work.

Ealy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-02-05(f)

If Ealy’s impairment prevents him from doing past work, the analysis proceeds to the fifth step: the “Commissioner will consider [his] RFC, age, education and past work experience to determine if [he] can perform other work. If [he] cannot perform other work, the Commissioner will find [him] disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).” Id. ... Because the controlling hypothetical inadequately described Ealy’s limitations, the expert’s conclusion that Ealy could work as an assembler, inspector, packer, or production worker does not serve as substantial evidence that Ealy could perform this work.

At step five, the regulation directs the ALJ to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Bailey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-12-03(a)(4)(v)

To determine if a person is “disabled,” an ALJ applies a five-step sequential analysis set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... If at this step the ALJ determines that the claimant is not able to make an adjustment to other work, the claimant is disabled.

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform other work existing in the national economy, with the burden shifting to the Commissioner after the claimant cannot perform past relevant work.

Salazar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-04-06(g)

Under step five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is able to perform other work that exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). At this step, the claimant has shown that she cannot perform past relevant work, and the burden then temporarily shifts to the Commissioner to determine whether there is other work available in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant is able to perform. Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 n.2 (11th Cir. 2001).

At step five, the Commissioner must consider the claimant’s physical ability, age, education, and work experience, then determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Campbell v. Astrue · filed 2010-05-17(f)

The final step of this inquiry is, in turn, divided into two parts. First, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s job qualifications by considering his 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.

Section 404.1520(g) requires the ALJ at step five to determine whether the claimant can perform other substantial gainful work existing in the national economy.

Mooney v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-15(g)

For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court with instructions to REMAND to the ALJ for the step five determination as to whether Mooney can engage in other types of substantial gainful work that exists in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g5).

At step five, § 404.1520(g)(1) requires determining whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy using a supportable residual functional capacity assessment.

Vega-Valentin v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-17(g)(1)

The analysis in this case centers on the ALJ’s determination at step five in the sequential evaluation process contained in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... In other words, a VE’s testimony must be predicated on a supportable RFC assessment. ... Therefore, the only evidence the ALJ could have permissibly relied on to reach conclusions regarding Vega’s RFC would have been medical records or expert medical testimony that discussed her impairments in functional terms. ... Because the VE’s testimony is based on an inconsistent and unsubstantiated RFC assessment, it cannot form the basis of the ALJ’s determination at step five. ... Based on the foregoing, I find that there is insufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s determination at step five of the analysis.

At step five, § 404.1520(g) places the burden on the ALJ to prove that a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work can perform other substantial gainful activity.

SOLSBEE v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-23(g)

Once a claimant has shown that she can no longer perform her past relevant work, the ALJ bears the burden of proving that the claimant can engage in other substantial gainful activity. ... In the ordinary case, the ALJ satisfies this burden by considering the claimant’s age, education, and work experience in conjunction with the applicable Medical-Vocational Guidelines (“Grid Rule”).

At step five, the Commissioner considers whether a claimant can adjust to other work and must identify work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Bailey v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-13(a)(4)(v)

As outlined above, the Commissioner must determine at Step five whether a claimant “can make an adjustment to other work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g), 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g). ... Accordingly, the ALJ DID NOT ERR in determining that Plaintiff was not disabled at Step five when he found that Plaintiff could perform the telephone solicitor position, which had a significant number of jobs in the economy..

Section 404.1520(f) requires the Commissioner, at step five, to determine whether a claimant can perform other work in the national economy in view of the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

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

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).

At step five, § 404.1520(f)(1) places the burden on the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Atwood v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-23(f)(1)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining if a person is eligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... At the fifth step, however, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform given his or her residual functional capacity (RFC), age, education, and work experience. ... If the Commissioner cannot meet this burden, the claimant is considered disabled for purposes of awarding benefits under the Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1). ... As noted above, once a claimant shows that he cannot perform past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can engage in SGA. The Commissioner “can meet this burden by propounding to a vocational expert a hypothetical question that reflects all the claimant’s limitations.” ... The ALJ must then determine whether the claimant can find work in the national economy. The ALJ’s determination must be supported by substantial evidence.

At the final step of the disability inquiry, § 404.1520(g) places the burden on the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other available work before denying benefits.

Carlisle v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-14(g)

At this last step, the burden is on the Commissioner to show that the claimant is capable of performing other available work before denying disability benefits.

The regulation uses a five-step disability evaluation and places the burden on the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant can perform other work available in the national economy.

Dube v. SSA · filed 2011-02-24(a)(4)(v)

A five-step process is used to evaluate an application for social security benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... At the fifth step, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that a claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform other work that may exist in the national economy. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v); Heggarty v . Sullivan, 947 F.2d 9 9 0 , 995 (1st Cir. 1991).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires the decisionmaker, at step five of the sequential evaluation, to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Collins v. Astrue · filed 2011-08-09(a)(4)(v)

An ALJ commits legal error if the ALJ fails to correctly follow the sequential evaluation process. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 789-90 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating that the Commissioner is required to follow the five-step sequential evaluation process in assessing disability claims). At step five in the process, the ALJ must determine if the claimant can make an adjustment to other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

At step five, the regulation requires a finding of disability when the claimant cannot adjust to other work after considering residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-07-08(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. ... That being the case, claimant is entitled to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) (“If you cannot make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are disabled.”).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) places the step-five burden on the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy, which may be established through substantial-evidence vocational-expert testimony.

Forrester v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-01-10(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden to show that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy, which the claimant can perform. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1239; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). An ALJ may make this determination either by applying the Medical Vocational Guidelines or by obtaining the testimony of a vocational expert. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1239–40. ... Here, the ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE properly comprised, expressly or by implication, all of Forrester’s impairments, and the VE’s answer constituted substantial evidence that Forrester could perform work in the national economy.

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that a claimant can perform other work existing in the national economy in light of the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

McGrath v. SSA · filed 2012-03-22(a)(4)(v)

At the fourth step of the evaluation process, an ALJ determines whether a claimant's impairment prevents him from engaging in work he has performed in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). If the claimant is unable to perform prior work, then the fifth step calls for an analysis of the claimant's ability to perform other work in light of his RFC, as well as age, education, and work experience. If the claimant is unable to perform other work in the national economy, then he is entitled to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Vega-Valentin v. Astrue, 725 F. Supp. 2d 264, 268 (D.P.R. 2010). The claimant has the burden, at Step 4, of proving that he cannot return to his former employment because of the alleged disability. ... Once a claimant has demonstrated an inability to return to his previous employment, the Commissioner has the burden, at Step 5, to prove the existence of other jobs in the national economy the claimant can perform. Ortiz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 890 F.2d 520, 524 (1st Cir. 1989).

At step five, § 404.1520(f) requires assessing the claimant's qualifications and determining whether work exists in the national economy, and the court held that reliance on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines meant a vocational expert was not required.

Knight v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-11(f)

At step 5 in the sequential evaluation, the ALJ was required to perform a two part process to first assess Plaintiffs job qualifications by considering his physical ability, age, education, and work experience, and then determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. ... In sum, this Court finds no error with regard to the ALJ’s decision to rely on the Grids and his determination that consultation with a vocational expert was not required.

Section 404.1520(f) requires the fifth step of the disability evaluation to assess the claimant's job qualifications and then determine whether suitable jobs exist in the national economy.

Petersen v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-25(f)

At step 5 in the sequential evaluation, the ALJ was required to perform a two part process to first assess Plaintiffs job qualifications by considering her physical ability, age, education, and work experience, and then determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform.

At step five, a claimant is not disabled when substantial evidence shows that the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Halterman v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr · filed 2013-05-09(a)(4)(v)

The Commissioner uses a five-step “sequential evaluation” to determine whether an individual is disabled under the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... Halterman’s claim is of no avail because there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination under step five of the sequential evaluation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability, with step five asking whether a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work can adjust to other work based on residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Jones v. Taylor · filed 2013-07-08(a), (g)

There is a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). First, the ALJ considers the claimant’s work activity. See id. § 404.1520(b). If the claimant is “doing any substantial gainful activity,” he is not disabled. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If he is not, the analysis proceeds to the second step. ... Fifth, if the ALJ finds that the claimant cannot do past relevant work because of his severe impairments, the ALJ “consider[s] the same residual functional capacity assessment . . . together with [the claimant’s] vocational factors (. . . age, education, and work experience) to determine if [he] can make an adjustment to other work.” Id. § 404.1520(g); see id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If he cannot make an adjustment to other work, the claimant is disabled. Id. § 404.1520(g).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires the Commissioner to assess whether significant numbers of jobs in the national economy exist that the claimant can perform.

Szilvasi v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2014-02-07(a)(4)(v)

As part of its determination of whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner must assess whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2011); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). ... Therefore, we conclude that the ALJ properly took into account all of Szilvasi’s limitations when it posed hypothetical questions to the vocational expert.

At the final step of the disability analysis, the government must show by substantial evidence that the claimant can perform specific jobs, and vocational-expert testimony supports that showing only when the hypothetical accurately portrays the claimant's established impairments.

Hill v. Commissioner Of Social Security · filed 2014-03-27

Hill next argues that the ALJ erred in the last step of the disability analysis set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. For this step, the burden of proof shifts to the government to show “by substantial evidence that [Hill] has the vocational qualifications to perform specific jobs.” Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[S]ubstantial evidence may be produced through reliance on the testimony of a vocational expert [] in response to a hypothetical question, but only if the question accurately portrays [the claimant’s] individual physical and mental impairments.” Id. at 512-13 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 404.1520(g) requires the ALJ at step five to consider whether, given the claimant’s background and residual functional capacity, the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Welch v. Colvin · filed 2014-05-09(g)

At step five of the sequential process, an ALJ is required to consider whether, given a claimant’s background and RFC, the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

At step five, an ALJ considers the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to decide whether the claimant can adjust to other work; vocational-expert evidence is not required in every such case.

Koch v. Colvin · filed 2014-06-25(g)

Here, however, the ALJ found that Koch could not perform her past work as a cashier, day care worker, and sales clerk, and therefore continued the evaluation at step five of the sequential evaluation process. The ALJ then considered several vocational factors along with his RFC finding and concluded that under Medical-Vocation Rule 201.2, Koch was not disabled. In such circumstances, the ALJ was not required to consult vocational evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ, at step five of the sequential evaluation, to determine whether a claimant can perform other work in the national economy considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Bilak v. Colvin · filed 2014-12-15

At the fifth step of a social security disability evaluation, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is able to do any other work considering Plaintiffs RFC, age, education, and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). If the claimant establishes that the impairment prevented her from performing past work, the burden shifts to the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is capable of performing alternative, substantial gainful activity present in the national economy. See id. Here, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could not perform her past relevant work, so he was required to determine the availability of other jobs that Plaintiff could perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Although Defendant argues that it could have relied on Social Security Rulings (“SSRs”) to support its position that a job base would exist for Plaintiff despite Plaintiffs non-exertional limitations, SSRs provide only “factors for consideration,” not a direct conclusion as to disability. (Def.’s Opp. 7, Pl.’s Reply 10-11); See Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259, 261 (3d Cir.2000). This Court finds that the ALJ did not establish a “crystal clear” fit concerning the combined effects of Plaintiffs 15 to 22 non-exertional limitations. See Allen v. Barnhart, 417 F.3d 396 (3d Cir.2005). Therefore, the ALJ’s reliance on the medical-vocational grid was not substantially justified in law and additional vocational evidence was necessary. See Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 461-62, 103 S.Ct. 1952, 76 L.Ed.2d 66 (1983).

At step five, the ALJ determines whether a claimant can adjust to other work considering residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, while the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that a significant number of jobs exist that the claimant can perform.

Stone v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2015-01-08(a)(4)(v)

If the claimant cannot perform her past relevant work, the ALJ must determine at step five whether the claimant can make an adjustment to other work, considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. ... The Commissioner, however, has a limited burden at step five to show that a significant number of jobs exist that a claimant can perform.

Section 404.1520(g) makes a claimant disabled when the Commissioner fails to show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Rustamova v. Colvin · filed 2015-05-22(g)

When the Commissioner fails to meet this burden, the claimant is disabled and is entitled to benefits.

At step five, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant can adjust to other work in the national economy; vocational-expert testimony conflicting with the DOT without an explanation does not satisfy that requirement.

Stamper v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-30(a)(4)(v)

As Moore and Kemp make clear, an ALJ fails to comply with step five of the disability analysis if he relies on vocational expert testimony that conflicts with the DOT without asking the vocational expert for explanation. Such unsupported testimony cannot constitute substantial evidence of the existence of other available jobs in the economy.

At step five, the disability analysis determines whether significant jobs exist in the general economy that the claimant can perform when the Grid does not apply.

Foxworth v. Colvin · filed 2017-04-19(a)(4)(v)

When the Grid does not apply, vocational expert testimony satisfies the purposes of the Grid, as well as the ultimate goal of the five-step test promulgated by the SSA, by determining whether or not significant jobs exist in the general economy for a claimant. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). Accordingly, because this Court concludes that the RFC does not change based on a vocational expert’s testimony, there was no error in the ALJ’s refusal to revise the RFC after Dr. Scorzelli’s testimony.

At step five, a claimant is not disabled when, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, the claimant can adjust to other work.

Bennett v. Berryhill · filed 2017-06-20(g)

Specifically, the regulations provide that if, upon considering, a claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, it is determined that the claimant “can make an adjustment to other work,” then the claimant will be found “not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

At step five, the agency considers a claimant's residual functional capacity together with age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Pittman v. Berryhill · filed 2018-04-26(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the benefits question is not simply whether Mr. Pittman has a brain injury, but what he can still do despite his limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v) (explaining that at step five, the agency considers its “assessment of [a claimant’s] residual functional capacity” along with “age, education, and work experience to see if [the claimant] can make an adjustment to other work”); id. §§ 404.1545 (a)(1), 416.945(a)(1) (explaining that residual functional capacity “is the most you can still do despite your limitations”).

Section 404.1520(g) places the burden on the agency at step five to show that a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work can perform other work in the national economy.

Kaminski v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-09(g)

At the fifth step, the burden of proof is on the agency. To deny benefits, the agency must show that even though the claimant could no longer perform his past relevant work, he was capable of performing some other work in the national economy.

At the fifth step, the agency bears the burden of showing that a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work can perform other work in the national economy; if the record establishes that the claimant cannot work, the claimant is disabled.

Kaminski v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-09(g), (a)(4)(v)

At the fifth step, the burden of proof is on the agency. To deny benefits, the agency must show that even though the claimant could no longer perform his past relevant work, he was capable of performing some other work in the national economy. ... The agency did not meet that burden here. Once the treating physician's opinions are given the proper weight, the record compels the conclusion that Kaminski was unable to work and thus was disabled under the relevant statutes and regulations.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv)-(v) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity at step four and, if the claimant cannot perform past relevant work or has none, determine at step five whether the claimant can perform other work given her age, education, and work experience.

Lemay v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-18(a)(4)(iv) (a)(4)(v)

If a claimant does not meet or medically equal all the criteria in a Listing, an ALJ must continue to step four to examine the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” or “RFC.” Essentially, a claimant’s RFC is the type of things she can still do physically, and is considered in determining whether she can perform “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If she cannot (or she has no past relevant work), the ALJ determines in step five whether the claimant can do any other work in the economy, given her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

At step five, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience to decide whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Goudy v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-26(a)(4)(v)

In step five, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other types of employment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... The hypothetical here captured the concrete consequences of Goudy’s impairments. ... Thus, the ALJ’s reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony in step five was proper.

At step five, the Commissioner considers the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work; if a significant number of suitable jobs exists in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled.

Webster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-05-16(a)(4)(v)

The Social Security regulations provide a five-step evaluation process for determining whether a claimant has proved that he is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). In relevant part, at the fifth step, the Commissioner must consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and his age, education, and work experience to see if she can make an adjustment to other work. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). At the fifth step, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that, in light of the claimant’s RFC and other factors, a significant number of jobs that the claimant can perform exist in the national economy. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2011); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If such jobs exist, then the claimant is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) treats a claimant as disabled when, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, the claimant cannot adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Andrews v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-07-30(a)(4)(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. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(av); 416.920(a)(4)(iv); 404.1520(a)(4)(v); 416.920(a)(4)(v); 404.1560(c); 416.960(c).

At step five, a claimant is disabled only if the claimant cannot perform any other work.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2019-08-06(g)

But the ALJ excluded exertional work from Plaintiff’s RFC assessment, and, as the ALJ correctly observed, the inability to perform labor-intensive work does not qualify one as disabled under the Social Security Act. R. at 14, 16. Rather, a claimant must be unable to perform any other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) requires the ALJ, at step five, to determine whether the claimant can perform work considering the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Knight v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-07(a)(4)

As the Magistrate Judge noted, at step five of the five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether, considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education and work experience there is work the claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

Section 404.1520(g)(1) places the step-five burden on the Commissioner to show that a claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Erickson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-07(g)(1)

At Step Five of the sequential analysis, the burden of proof rests with the Commissioner to establish whether other work exists in the national economy that an individual of the claimant's age, education, work experience, and RFC is able to perform. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g); Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099.

At step five, the regulation requires considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to determine whether significant work exists in the national economy; if the claimant cannot do other work, the claimant is disabled.

Padilla-Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-01-29(f)

The administrative law judge ended the sequential inquiry at step five. At this level, it has already been determined that the claimant cannot perform any work he has performed in the past due to a severe impairment or combination of impairments. The inquiry requires a consideration of the claimant’s residual functional capacity as well as the claimant’s age, education, and past work experience to see if the claimant can do other work. If the claimant cannot do other work, a finding of disability will follow. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of determining that significant jobs exist in the national economy given the above factors.

At step five of the disability evaluation, the Commissioner must show that a significant number of jobs exists in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Whitney v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-29(a)(4)(v)

At Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that there is a significant number of jobs in the national economy (either in the region where the claimant lives or in several regions in the country).

At step five, when a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers while accounting for the claimant’s concrete limitations.

Fellner v. Saul · filed 2019-08-30(a)(4)(v)

Fifth, if the claimant’s RFC does not allow the claimant to perform past relevant work, the burden of production to show the claimant maintains the RFC to perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy shifts to the Commissioner. See Brock v. Astrue, 574 F.3d 1062, 1064 (8th Cir. 2012); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... Because the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert did not capture the concrete consequences of Fellner’s visual impairments, this case will be remanded so that the ALJ can further develop the record. On remand, the ALJ must elicit expert testimony addressing whether Fellner’s inability to read print smaller than twelve-point font meaningfully diminishes the base of jobs available to her in the national economy. See Doolittle, 249 F.3d at 811.

At step five, the Commissioner must prove that the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience; otherwise, the claimant is disabled.

Herrera v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-30(a)(4)(v)

The Social Security Administration utilizes a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 & 416.920 (2012). The initial burden of proof rests upon the claimant to meet the first four steps. If the claimant satisfies his burden with respect to the first four steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner for step five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant is capable of making an adjustment to other work after considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC), age, education, and work experience. Id. If the Commissioner fails to meet this burden, then the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v); 416.920(a)(4)(v). If, however, the Commissioner proves that the claimant is able to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that a claimant who cannot do past relevant work can adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-06(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 show 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. See Bladow v. Apfel, 205 F.3d 356, 358-59 n.5 (8th Cir. 2000). The Commissioner must show not only that the claimant’s RFC will allow him to make the adjustment to other work, but also that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If the claimant can make the adjustment, then the Commissioner will find the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) governs the step-five determination whether a claimant can adjust to other work after the ALJ has assessed the claimant’s limitations.

Gowins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-20(a)(4)(v)

Finally, Plaintiff argues that because the ALJ’s RFC failed to properly account for Plaintiff’s migraine headaches, need for a cane to ambulate, and the severity of her mental impairments, the hypothetical question to the VE contained no accurate and comprehensive description of Plaintiff’s impairments. For a VE’s testimony to constitute substantial evidence that a claimant can adjust to other work, the ALJ must present the VE with a hypothetical that includes all of the claimant’s impairments. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253, 1270 (11th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). An ALJ need not, however, include findings in the hypothetical that the ALJ has properly discounted or rejected as unsupported. Crawford v. Commr. Of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1161 (11th Cir. 2004). As previously discussed, the ALJ properly rejected the alleged limitations caused by Plaintiff’s headaches, mental issues, and ambulatory problems; therefore, the ALJ did not have to include such limitation in his hypotheticals to the VE.

At step five, the ALJ determines whether a claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Grome v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process,° the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is capable of making a successful adjustment to other work (as opposed to his past relevant work) that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

At step five, if the claimant cannot return to past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Barker v. Saul · filed 2019-09-23(a)(4)(v)

A five-step regulatory framework is used to determine whether an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987) (describing five-step process). ... If the Commissioner determines the claimant cannot return to his PRW, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at Step Five to show the claimant retains the RFC to perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) places the burden at step five on the ALJ to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers that the claimant can perform despite the claimant’s limitations.

Daniel v. Saul · filed 2019-09-23(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five of the sequential analysis, the ALJ has the burden to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that the Plaintiff can perform despite his identified limitations. See Brock, 674 F.3d 1062, 1064 (8th Cir. 2012); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c)(2).

At Step 5 of the sequential evaluation, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than her past relevant work.

STROUT v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-09-29(g)

The ALJ reached Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); Goodermote, 690 F.2d at 7.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step five to determine whether a significant number of jobs exist that the claimant can perform despite the limitations in the residual functional capacity.

Reeson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-11(a)(4)(iv)

At step five, the claimant is entitled to disability benefits unless the ALJ shows that a significant number of jobs exist that the claimant can perform despite the limitations in the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); Gutierrez v. Colvin, 844 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 2016).

At step five, if a claimant cannot return to past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Fields v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-12(a)(4)(v)

If the Commissioner determines the claimant cannot return to past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show the claimant retains the residual functioning capacity (RFC) to perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can adjust to other work, considering the claimant’s individualized limitations, including stress tolerance.

Elmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-15(a)(4)(v)

In the fifth and final step, the Commissioner must present evidence showing that the claimant is not disabled because the claimant is physically and mentally capable of adjusting to an alternative job. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g). More specifically, the Commissioner bears the burden of proving that the claimant "retains a residual functional capacity to perform alternative substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir. 1999). ... In other words, an ALJ must consider how a claimant’s stress tolerance could impact her ability to perform the specific job or jobs that otherwise fit her RFC profile. ... Accordingly, remand is appropriate so that the ALJ can properly consider, at step five of the sequential evaluation process, whether Elmer could perform any of the available jobs given her individualized stress tolerance.

At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that a claimant, considering age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, can perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

RAMOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-12-30(g)

Step Five: At this point, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that the claimant, considering his age, education, work experience, and RFC, is capable of performing jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); see also Poulos v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 88, 91-92 (3d Cir. 2007). If so, benefits will be denied; if not, they will be awarded.

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy before finding the claimant disabled.

Kinhart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-07(g)

The record also does not contain evidence establishing whether there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform if Mr. Johnsen’s opinions were properly accounted for. ... That issue, at a minimum, needs to be resolved by the ALJ before Plaintiff can be found disabled under the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g); see also Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-99.

At step five, inability to perform past work does not by itself establish disability; the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work available in significant numbers in the national economy.

Platt v. Saul · filed 2020-01-28(a)(v)

If the claimant cannot perform his past work, though, the evaluation proceeds to a fifth step. Id. § 404.1520(a)(v), (g). At this final step, the Commissioner must demonstrate that (1) based upon the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, the claimant can perform other work, and (2) such work is available in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. § 404.1560(c); Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that, at step five, the burden moves to the Commissioner). If the Commissioner fails to meet this burden, the claimant is deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1).

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy given the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Gutierrez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-07(g)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ is required to determine whether a claimant can perform any other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, given the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

At Step Five, the regulation requires SSA to prove that an applicant can adjust to other work before denying benefits.

Orr v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2020-02-28(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five, the burden of proof shifts to SSA, see Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 551 (3d Cir. 2005), and to deny an applicant benefits, SSA must prove that the applicant can adjust to other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) (Disability Insurance Benefits); id. § 416.920(a)(4)(v) (Supplemental Security Income); see also § 404.1560(c).

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity.

Reading v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-02(g)

After determining the RFC at Step 4, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not able to perform her past relevant work and the burden shifted to the Commissioner, at Step 5, to indicate evidence of other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform, based on her age, education, work experience, and RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

At step five, the regulation requires considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience and, if the claimant can adjust to other work, requires the Commissioner to establish that a significant number of such jobs exists in the national economy.

Daniels v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(a)(4)(v)

Step Five. Considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, is the claimant able to “make an adjustment to other work?” If not, then the claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If the claimant is able to do other work, the Commissioner must establish that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can do. ... At step five, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform light work did not involve climbing, operating heavy machinery and only occasional reaching. ... Claimants who fail to challenge a testifying VE’s job numbers during administrative proceedings forfeit such a challenge on appeal. ... The plaintiff did not suggest that the VE’s job estimates might be unreliable at any point during administrative proceedings. ... His claim is therefore forfeited.

At step five, § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work and whether significant numbers of jobs exist that the claimant can perform, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, past relevant work, age, and work experience.

Shiwbodh v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ examines if the plaintiff can adjust to other work considering the plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), past relevant work, age, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

At step five, the ALJ determines whether a claimant can adjust to other work based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience.

Springer v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-31(g)(1)

At Step Five, the ALJ determines whether the claimant, based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors (such as age, education, and work experience), can “make an adjustment to other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1).

At the fifth step, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can adjust to other work that exists in the national economy.

Whalen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(a)(4)(v)

In the fifth and final step, the Commissioner must present evidence showing that the claimant is not disabled because the claimant is physically and mentally capable of adjusting to an alternative job. See Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g). Specifically, the Commissioner must prove that the claimant “retains a residual functional capacity to perform alternative substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Section 404.1520(g) shifts the burden to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant can perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity.

LARSEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-05-06(g)

Step Five: At this point, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that the claimant, considering his age, education, work experience, and RFC, is capable of performing jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); see Poulos v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 88, 91-92 (3d Cir. 2007). If so, benefits will be denied; if not, they will be awarded.

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work by identifying specific jobs existing in substantial numbers that the claimant can perform despite the claimant's limitations.

Fink v. Saul · filed 2020-07-01(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five of the sequential analysis, the Commissioner has the burden to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that the Plaintiff can perform despite his identified limitations. See Brock v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1062, 1064 (8th Cir. 2012); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1560(c)(2), 416.960(c)(2). In making this determination, the Commissioner may satisfy his or her burden by eliciting testimony from a vocational expert based upon hypothetical questions that “set forth impairments supported by substantial evidence on the record and accepted as true and capture the concrete consequences of those impairments.” Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 972 (8th Cir. 2010). “A vocational expert's testimony constitutes substantial evidence when it is based on a hypothetical that accounts for all of the claimant's proven impairments.” Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 560-61 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work, meaning whether the claimant can perform other substantial gainful activity that exists in the national economy.

MacPhee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-20(g)

The final step of the five-step sequential evaluation process to determine if a claimant is disabled requires the ALJ to determine if the claimant “can mak[e] an adjustment to any other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g) (2012). This involves a determination that the claimant “possesses the capacity to perform other substantial gainful activity that exists in the national economy.” Varley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 777, 779 (6th Cir. 1987) (citing Kirk v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 667 F.2d 524, 529 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 957, 103 S. Ct. 2428, 77 L .Ed. 2d 1315 (1983)).

At step five, § 404.1520(g) requires the Commissioner to show that, considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, the claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Taylor v. Saul · filed 2020-07-28(g)

At the fifth step of the sequential analysis, the Commissioner must show that, considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and RFC, the claimant could perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 404.1566, 416.920(g), 416.966. ... Although the ALJ’s hypothetical did not include a limitation to simple, routine tasks, the VE’s response accounted for the limitation. ... The ALJ’s hypothetical, therefore, fairly stated Taylor’s impairments.

At the fifth step, the Commissioner must show that a claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy after considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Loh v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-01(a)(4)(v)

The Social Security Administration uses a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 416.920 (2012). The initial burden of proof rests on the claimant to meet the first four steps. If the claimant satisfies his burden with respect the first four steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner for step five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can adjust to other work after considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. Id. If the Commissioner fails to meet this burden, then the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v); 416.920(a)(4)(v). If, however, the Commissioner finds that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled. Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 949, 953–54 (9th Cir. 2001).

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform other work that exists in the national or regional economy.

Butler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-11(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential analysis, an ALJ must determine “whether the person can do any other work that exists in the national or regional economy.” Fast v. Barnhart, 397 F.3d 468, 470 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (e)).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) places the burden on the Commissioner at step five to show that a claimant can adjust to other work after considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Burnett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-28(a)(4)(v)

The Social Security Administration uses a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 416.920 (2012). The initial burden of proof rests on the claimant to meet the first four steps. If the claimant satisfies her burden with respect the first four steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner for step five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can adjust to other work after considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. Id. If the Commissioner fails to meet this burden, then the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v); 416.920(a)(4)(v).

At step five, § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) places the burden on the Commissioner to show that the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Manriquez v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-28(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can adjust to other work after considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. Id. If the Commissioner fails to meet this burden, then the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v); 416.920(a)(4)(v). If, however, the Commissioner finds that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled. Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 949, 953–54 (9th Cir. 2001).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires the ALJ at step five to determine whether the claimant can perform other work available in the national economy based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Rivera-Collazo v. Social Security Commissioner · filed 2020-09-30(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ evaluates whether a claimant’s RFC, combined with his age, education, and work experience, allows him to perform any other work that is available in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). Plaintiff claims that the ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE was improper because it was based on an RFC to perform light work with additional restrictions. ECF No. 19, at 17-18; Tr. 27. As stated earlier, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination and Plaintiff cannot rehash her RFC argument at this final step. See Gallant v. Berryhill, Civ. No. 16-308, 2017 WL 2731303, at *7 (D. Me. June 25, 2017). The ALJ provided an accurate hypothetical to the VE, and thus, the step five determination is supported by substantial evidence.

At step five, § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires evaluating whether a claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience allow the claimant to perform other work available in the national economy.

Madera-Colon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ evaluates whether a claimant’s RFC, combined with his age, education, and work experience, allows him to perform any other work that is available in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... The ALJ provided an incomplete hypothetical to the VE, and thus, the step five determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(g) places the burden on the Commissioner at Step 5 to show that a claimant can perform work other than past relevant work.

GEE v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-12-15(g)

The ALJ reached Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); Goodermote, 690 F.2d at 7.

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that a claimant can perform work other than past relevant work.

SIROIS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-12-17(g)

The ALJ reached Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); Goodermote, 690 F.2d at 7.

At step five, the Social Security Administration must show that the claimant can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and RFC.

MELCHIONNA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-03-09(g)

At step five, the burden shifts to the Social Security Administration to demonstrate that the claimant is capable of performing other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy in light of the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); see Poulos v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 88, 91–92 (3d Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).

At step five, the adjudicator considers the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work; if the claimant can adjust, the claimant is not disabled.

Lamoureux v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-09(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the adjudicator considers his or her assessment of the claimant’s RFC, the claimant’s age, the claimant’s education, and the claimant’s other work experience to determine whether the claimant can make an adjustment to work other than the claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the ALJ finds that the claimant can adjust to other work, the claimant will be found not disabled. Id.

At step five, the Commissioner must produce evidence that the claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy, and an ALJ may rely on vocational-expert testimony about specific jobs to find that the claimant can adjust to other work.

Skeans v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-24(a)(4)(v)

At the final step of the sequential analysis, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to produce evidence as to whether the claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. ... An ALJ may determine that a claimant has the ability to adjust to other work in the national economy by relying on a vocational expert’s testimony that the claimant has the ability to perform specific jobs. ...

At step five, after the claimant succeeds through the first four steps, § 404.1520(g) shifts the burden to the Commissioner to prove the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Dillon v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(g)

If the claimant is successful at all four of the preceding steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, considering claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience, that he or she is capable of performing other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). The Commissioner is responsible for providing evidence that demonstrates that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the individual can do. Lockwood v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2010).

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the economy based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Wood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-21(a)(4)(v) and (g)

At the fifth step, the Commissioner has the burden of demonstrating a significant number of jobs exist in the local, regional, and national economies that the claimant can perform, given her RFC, age, education, and past work experience.

At step five, the ALJ bears the burden of finding, based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity, that the claimant can perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Brown v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-06-09(g)

At step five it is the ALJ’s burden, among other things, to make findings about the existence of jobs that a claimant can perform based upon the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 404.1560(c).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) includes step four of the sequential evaluation, which requires deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; a step-four finding of no disability cannot stand when the evidence does not establish that the job qualifies as past relevant work.

Rogers v. Saul · filed 2021-06-28(a)(4)

In determining whether a claimant qualifies as disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, the ALJ employs a five-step sequential evaluation. The analysis requires the ALJ to consider whether: ... 4) The claimant possesses a residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work; and ... 5) The claimant possesses a residual functional capacity to perform other work in the national economy considering his or her age, education, and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140–42 (1987); Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750–51 (10th Cir. 1988). ... Because there is no record evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Ms. R. worked at Desert King for only four months, his determination that Desert King qualified as past relevant work is not based on substantial evidence. ... Accordingly, the court declines to find ALJ’s error at step four was harmless. Any new factual findings regarding past relevant work must be made by the ALJ in the first instance.

At step five, an administrative law judge may rely on vocational-expert testimony as substantial evidence that a claimant can perform work available in the national economy.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-28(a)(4)(v)

An administrative law judge may properly rely on a vocational expert’s testimony as substantial evidence to prove a claimant’s ability to perform work in the national economy. Howard v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235, 238 (6th Cir. 2002); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v) & 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 404.1520(g) requires the ALJ at step five to determine whether, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, the claimant can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

CRESSMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-07-15(g)

At step five, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant, considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, can perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). ... In short, because the ALJ expressly relied on the vocational expert’s testimony in response to hypothetical questions that did not contain all Plaintiff’s physical and mental limitations, R. 24–25, the Court cannot conclude that this error was harmless or that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. ... This Court therefore concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be reversed, and the matter must be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration of these step five issues even if, upon further examination of these issues, the ALJ again concludes that Plaintiff is not entitled to benefits.

At step five, after a claimant cannot return to past work, the Commissioner evaluates whether the claimant can perform other work considering residual functional capacity and vocational factors; vocational-expert testimony can satisfy that burden when the Medical-Vocational Guidelines do not fully apply.

(SS) Lee-Klein v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-06(f)

The ALJ then went on to determine whether, in light of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, she could engage in other types of substantial gainful work. Considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity in conjunction with the Medical-Vocational Guidelines and the vocational expert opinion, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff could perform light, unskilled labor such as that of a garment folder, stock checker, or collator. Id. The ALJ concluded that, accordingly, Plaintiff is not disabled. Id. ... Here, the ALJ properly obtained vocational expert testimony in lieu of reliance on the Grids, meeting the Step 5 burden. The Court finds no independent error at Step 5, but does recognize that, consistent with the rest of this opinion, the errors committed at Step 2 persist throughout the ALJ’s decision. Because the ALJ’s Step 5 findings are based on a residual functioning capacity that does not necessarily represent all of Plaintiff's impairments, the ALJ’s vocational findings are faulty. Upon remand, the ALJ should consider all of Plaintiff's severe impairments when determining Plaintiffs ability to engage in other work.

At step five, the ALJ evaluates whether the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience permit other work available in the national economy.

Munoz-Cintron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-05(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ evaluates whether a claimant’s RFC, combined with his age, education, and work experience, allows him to perform any other work that is available in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... Thus, it was reasonable for the ALJ to infer that the 36,000 interviewer jobs exist in several regions of the United States. See Vining, 720 F. Supp. 2d at 138. The ALJ’s step five determination is supported by substantial evidence.

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work using the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, and the vocational-expert analysis must account for all impairments.

Kelley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the Commissioner must consider the assessment of the RFC combined with the claimant’s age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can make an adjustment to other work. ... If the claimant can make an adjustment to other work, a finding of not disabled is warranted. ... Conversely, if the claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work, a finding of disabled is warranted. ... At this step, the burden temporarily shifts to the Commissioner to show other jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy which, given the claimant’s impairments, the claimant can perform. ... If the ALJ utilizes the testimony of a VE, the ALJ must pose an accurate hypothetical to the VE that accounts for all of the claimant’s impairments. ... For a VE’s testimony to constitute substantial evidence, however, the ALJ must pose a hypothetical question which comprises all of the claimant’s impairments.

At step five, the ALJ considers a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can perform other work; if so, the claimant is not disabled, and the Commissioner must show that such work exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Dickerson v. Saul · filed 2021-08-27(g)

Step five requires the ALJ to determine whether the individual can do any other work considering her RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). If she can do other work, then a finding of not disabled is made. Although the individual generally continues to have the burden of proving disability at this step, a limited burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is responsible for providing evidence that demonstrates that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the individual can do. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141-42.

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Polo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-03(g)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ is required to determine whether a claimant can perform any other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Section 404.1520(g) requires the ALJ at step five to determine whether a claimant, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

DILLER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-15(g)

At step five, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant, considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, can perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). ... Here, the relevant hypothetical question posed by the ALJ to the vocational expert assumed a claimant with Plaintiff’s vocational profile and the RFC found by the ALJ. R. 121, 148. ... For the reasons discussed earlier in this decision, this hypothetical sufficiently captured Plaintiff’s credibly established limitations and therefore supported the ALJ’s determination at step five. See Rutherford, 399 F.3d at 554; Podedworny, 745 F.2d at 218. ... In short, the Court finds that the Acting Commissioner has carried her burden at step five of the sequential evaluation and concludes that substantial evidence supports her determination in this regard.