20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

At step five, § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires the ALJ to determine whether significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Civitello v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-25(a)(4)(v)

At step five, an ALJ “must determine that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.” McIntyre, 758 F.3d at 151 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v)).

At step five, § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to decide whether the claimant can adjust to other work in the national economy.

Deason v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-29(a)(4)(v)

The applicable regulations require the ALJ to determine whether a significant number of other work exists in the national economy that a claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1566(a), 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.966(a); see Sawyers v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 4256826, at *7 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 30, 2021) (explaining that the ALJ satisfies his burden at step five so long as he identifies at least one occupation existing in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform). ... That is precisely what the Agency did here, relying upon on “vocational specialist advice” in finding there were 19,200 jobs Claimant could perform; these numbers more than satisfy its step-five burden.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(v) requires the ALJ at step five to consider the claimant's residual functional capacity and vocational factors and determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Doing v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-28(a)(4)(v)

At step five, ALJ must factor in a claimant’s RFC and age, education, and work experience, and determine if the claimant is able to make an adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

At step five, § 404.1520(g) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant can perform other work in the national economy; benefits are available only if the claimant cannot.

Cardoso · filed 2025-12-16(g)

Step five of the sequential evaluation requires the ALJ to determine whether the person is capable of performing other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). At this step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to “provide evidence about the existence of work in the national economy” that the person can do. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(b)(3), 404.1560(c)(2); Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5; Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018). ... This satisfied the Commissioner’s burden at step five “to determine if there is other work available in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.” Washington, 906 F.3d at 1359. At this point, Cardoso had the burden of showing that she was unable to perform these jobs, which she failed to do. See id. Accordingly, the ALJ had substantial evidence from which to conclude that jobs existed in the national economy that Cardoso could perform.

Section 404.1520(g)(1) requires a step-five determination based on a supportable residual functional capacity assessment when vocational-expert testimony is used to identify other work.

Martinez-Valentin · filed 2026-03-16(g)(1)

Put differently, a VE’s testimony must be predicated on a supportable RFC assessment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1). ... I must therefore reject any claim of error at Step Five that raises the issue of a faulty hypothetical question to the VE based on said RFC assessment.

At step five, the Commissioner must identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers that the claimant can perform despite her limitations.

Diaz v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(g)

At step 5, “the Commissioner has the burden to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that [a] claimant can perform despite [her] identified limitations.” Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 2015); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

At step five, a claimant is not disabled if her impairments permit her to do other work in the national economy; a vocational expert’s opinion can support that finding when the hypothetical reflects the claimant’s supported limitations.

Halsey-Ricks v. P Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-07-23(g)

If the claimant’s impairments do not prevent her from doing other work that exists in the national economy, then she is not disabled. Id. § 404.1520(g). ... Therefore, the ALJ’s hypothetical question, and the vocational expert’s opinion, is supported by substantial evidence.

At the fifth step, the Secretary must show that the claimant can perform other work available in the national economy, considering physical ability, age, education, and work experience.

Gibbons v. Bowen · filed 1987-02-20(f)

Once the disability evaluation process reaches the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Secretary to prove that the claimant has the residual capacity to perform alternative occupations available in the national economy. Graham v. Heckler, 580 F.Supp. 1238, 1240 (S.D.N.Y.1984). To determine whether alternative, suitable occupations exist in the national economy, the Act directs the Secretary to consider the four factors, physical ability, age, education, and work experience, that Congress has identified as being relevant to this determination. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

At step five, the Secretary must show that a claimant who cannot return to past work retains the capacity to perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers.

Lynch v. HHS · filed 1995-02-17(f)

At Step Five in the seguential evaluation process, the Secretary has the burden of showing that, despite the severity of ... the claimant's impairment and inability to return to past relevant work, he or she retains the residual functional capacity to perform other occupations that exist in significant numbers in the national economy and region where the claimant lives.

At the final step of the disability evaluation, the Secretary bears the burden of establishing suitable work the claimant can perform.

Massimino v. Shalala · filed 1996-06-10

While the burden rests upon the Secretary to establish the existence of suitable jobs available in the national economy, there is substantial evidence in the record connecting the Plaintiff’s capabilities and limitations with the requirements of the designated jobs as described in the DOT.

At step five, a claimant who cannot perform past work may still be found not disabled if she can perform other work available in the national economy.

Feliciano v. Apfel · filed 2000-08-30(f)

Because the Court finds that the ALJ de facto performed a step five analysis and the Court found occupations available in the national economy that Feliciano could perform, the Court hereby MODIFIES the ALJ’s decision to reflect a decision at step five of the Secretary’s algorithm and AFFIRMS the Secretary’s decision.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to complete the five-step disability analysis, including assessing at step five whether the claimant can perform a significant number of jobs.

Janezich v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-22

However, in determining whether a person meets the Act’s definition of disability — which includes in its definition that a person be disabled for a continuous period of twelve months — the ALJ was required to apply the five-step analysis described above. The ALJ, however, improperly ignored the evidence and misapplied the law as to step five of the analysis.

At step five, the Commissioner must have an opportunity to show that the claimant can perform other work before a court orders benefits.

Brickhouse v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-23(a)(4)(v)

Accordingly, the Commissioner has not had the opportunity to try to show that there is other work that Brickhouse can perform, and we cannot order an award until the Commissioner has had that chance.

At step five, vocational expert testimony based on a supported residual functional capacity can substantiate a finding that the claimant can perform other work.

Ramos-Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-03-10(g)

In turn, the ALJ’s step 5 determination was supported by the substantial evidence of the vocational expert’s testimony. Although plaintiff challenged the premise of the vocational expert’s testimony in her memorandum of law, the ALJ’s hypothetical question was based upon facts that the ALJ had deemed relevant based upon its RFC determination. Given that the RFC was sufficiently supported, this was not error.

At step five, the ALJ considers the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience to decide whether the claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Sanchez v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-03(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the disability analysis, an ALJ considers the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience to determine whether there is substantial gainful work activity, existing in "significant numbers" in the national economy, that the claimant can perform. ... As such, I find that the ALJ did not err when he determined that the claimant could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers, given the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Lake v. SSA · filed 2021-04-15(a)(4)(v)

Finally, at Step 5, when the production burden shifts to the Commissioner, if the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the ALJ determines whether significant numbers of other jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform, given the applicable RFC. ... Because the hypothetical person’s limitations equaled or exceeded Lake’s RFC, the VE’s testimony validly constitutes “substantial evidence” to support the decision.

At step five, a claimant who can adjust to other work is not disabled.

Mercado-Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-31(g)

A claimant is not disabled if he or she can adjust to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). ... The VE’s findings that there were 85,000 jobs at the sedentary level that Plaintiff could perform is sufficient.

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational profile.

SMITH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-04-25(g)

At step five, an ALJ must decide whether the claimant, considering the claimant’s RFC and vocational profile, can perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). Unlike at the first four steps of the sequential evaluation, the Commissioner bears the burden of proof at step five.

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

Torres v. Saul · filed 2019-08-23(g)

At Step Five, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can do “other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy” based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity. Greek, 802 F.3d 373 n.2 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 404.1560(b)). ... Based on the vocational expert testimony on this record, the ALJ erred in finding that Ms. Torres could find a job in the local or national economy under Step Five.

Section 404.1520 requires the agency at step five to consider a claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors when deciding whether the claimant can do other work.

White v. SSA · filed 2019-09-25

A five-step sequential evaluation process is used to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. ... VE Hale’s testimony provides substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that jobs exist in significant numbers that the claimant can perform with her limitations.

Gibbons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-31(g)

If the claimant is unable to return to past relevant work, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that the claimant could perform other jobs which exist in significant numbers in the national economy, based on claimant’s age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). ... Because the VE did not provide any indication that a significant number of information clerk and office helper jobs are available with a sit/stand option, the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff could work in an unskilled job at the light exertional level is not supported by substantial evidence.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work available in significant numbers in the national economy.

NEGRON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-10-26(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must establish that the claimant can perform “other work,” which the ALJ does by showing that there are available jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 616 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1560). ... Accordingly, ALJ Pustizzi’s failure to resolve the identified conflict is harmless.

At step five, the Commissioner can satisfy its burden by showing that the claimant can perform a job available in significant numbers in the national economy.

Neal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-28(a)(4)(v)

Even if the RFC included the limitation to occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors, the addresser position would still provide a substantial number of jobs available in the national economy to satisfy the ALJ’s burden at step five.

At step five, a claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner shows that the claimant can perform other work available in the national economy.

Damon v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-06(g)(1)

If the Commissioner meets this burden, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1). ... The ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s opinion in reaching the Step Five determination.

At step five, the Commissioner may show that unskilled jobs exist in the national economy that fit the claimant’s limitations.

Jones v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-18(a)(4)(v)

What matters at stage five is that the ALJ ... relied on the full record to conclude that unskilled jobs exist in the national economy consistent with Jones’s limitations. Specifically, she determined that he could work as a hand packer, warehouse worker, or a laundry worker, after crediting testimony from a vocational expert listing those professions.

At step five, the regulation requires evaluating whether the claimant can adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, using a fact-specific assessment rather than a fixed numerical threshold.

Norris v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2025-06-03(a)(4)(v)

Norris confines his appeal to step five of the ALJ’s analysis: whether the claimant can adjust to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... To assess whether a claimant can successfully transition to other work, an ALJ must identify the types of jobs the claimant could perform considering their disabilities and determine whether those jobs “exist in significant numbers in the national economy.” ... There is not “one special number” which separates a significant number of jobs from an insignificant number. ... Rather, the decision requires a fact-specific inquiry viewed in the context of each case. ... In sum, Norris attempts to impose a categorical threshold job number where none exists. We reject his attempt to do so.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated sequentially, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work at step four and other work in the national economy at step five.

Morfin v. Saul · filed 2019-12-12(a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

At step four, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s RFC, the claimant is capable of performing work that he or she has performed in the past (past relevant work). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is capable of performing past relevant work, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). ... At step five, the Commissioner should conclude whether, in view of the claimant’s RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... The ALJ shall make new findings at step four and step five, and shall obtain testimony from the vocational expert regarding deviation from the DOT regarding English language limitations or any other relevant limitations.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to determine disability through a sequential five-step analysis, including whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and other work in the national economy.

Morris v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-12

In determining whether a person is disabled, the Regulations require the A.L.J. to perform a sequential five-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. In step one, the A.L.J. must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. In step two, the A.L.J. must determine whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment. If the claimant fails to show that his or her impairment is severe, he or she is ineligible for benefits.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to evaluate disability claims through a five-step sequence: substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairment, past work, and other work in the national economy.

Werle v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-17

SSA regulations require the ALJ to evaluate disability claims pursuant to a five-step sequential process. ... The first step requires a determination of whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If so, then the claimant is not disabled under the Act and benefits are denied. ... If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the ALJ then proceeds to step two which requires a determination of whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). In making a determination at step two, the ALJ uses medical evidence to consider whether the claimant’s impairment more than minimally limited or restricted his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. ... If the ALJ makes a finding of severity, the ALJ proceeds to step three which requires a determination of whether the impairment meets or equals one of several listed impairments that the Commissioner acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); 20 CFR Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. If the claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, then the claimant is presumed to be disabled and no further inquiry is necessary. ... The fourth step requires the ALJ to consider whether the claimant has sufficient residual functional capacity (“RFC”) ... to perform past work. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the ALJ concludes that the claimant has RFC to perform past work, then the claim is denied. ... However, if the claimant cannot perform any past work due to a severe impairment, then the ALJ must move to the fifth step, which requires consideration of the claimant’s RFC to perform other substantial gainful work in the national economy in view of claimant’s age, education, and work experience. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

Section 404.1520's five-step evaluation is the initial method for deciding disability, without separating out effects that might be caused by substance use disorders.

Viers v. Astrue · filed 2008-10-22(a)

“The ALJ must reach this determination initially ... using the five-step approach described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 without segregating out any effects that might be due to substance use disorders.”

Section 404.1520(d) treats a claimant as presumptively disabled when the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Winans v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1988-08-04(d)

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

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step disability evaluation; at step four, the claimant must show inability to perform past relevant work, and if she does, the Commissioner must show at step five that other significant jobs are available.

Roderick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-04-16(a)(4)(iv), (g)

The Commissioner applies a five-step test to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). ... At step four, the question is “whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work.” ... It is the claimant’s burden to establish an inability to return to her past relevant work. ... A failure of proof at step four dooms the claimant’s case. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). ... 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.” ... 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 three, § 404.1520(d) treats impairments that meet or medically equal a listed impairment as establishing disability.

Sherrod v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-12(d)

The Listings consist of impairments, organized by major body systems, that are deemed sufficiently severe to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1525(a), 416.925(a). Therefore, if a claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listing, that fact alone establishes that the claimant is disabled. Jd. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

At step three, an impairment may establish disability by equaling the severity of a listed impairment without matching its precise description.

Borgos-Hansen v. Colvin · filed 2015-06-17(a)(4)(iii)

However, in order to qualify as disabling, an impairment need not track precisely the Listings’ description of a particular impairment. Under this wording, an individual is presumptively disabled if his or her condition, in terms of its severity, meets or equals that of a listed impairment.

Section 404.1520(c) was promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Bailey v. Bowen · filed 1988-09-13(c)

Plaintiff claims that 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521, 416.920(c) and SSR 82-55 were promulgated in violation of the APA. This court finds, however, that the regulations were promulgated in accordance with the provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553.

Under § 404.1520(c), an ALJ must make findings about the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities before concluding that an impairment is not severe.

Swope v. Heckler · filed 1984-07-06(c)

The AU must make findings as to a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. A conclusory statement that an impairment does not significantly limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work functions and that the impairment is therefore not “severe” is not sufficient.

Section 404.1520 requires a sequential disability evaluation, including a severity screen that can determine disability status without considering age, education, or work experience.

Key v. Heckler · filed 1985-03-08(c)

20 C.F.R. § 404.-1520(c) provides, however, that if an impairment is not severe, i.e., one that does not “significantly limit[] [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” a finding of not disabled is mandated without consideration of the claimant’s age, education, and work experience.

At step two, a claimant must have a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is severe, meaning it significantly limits physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; the evaluation then proceeds to the next step.

LINGARD v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-04-20(a)(4)(ii), (c)

As stated above, at the second step of the analysis, the ALJ must assess whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) “The severity test at step two is a ‘de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims.’” McCrea v. Commissioner of Social Security, 370 F.3d 357, 360-61 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). An impairment is severe if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(c); 20 C.F.R. § 1521(a). If a claimant is found to have a severe impairment, the analysis proceeds to the next step.

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

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

At step-two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe, medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that meets the durational requirement. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520 requires a step-two determination of whether an impairment is severe, and a step-two error is harmless when the ALJ continues the sequential analysis and considers all impairments in assessing functional capacity.

Gayle A. Bombard v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-03-11(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At Step Two, the ALJ determines based on the record evidence whether the claimant has one or more medically determinable impairments that are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(ii). An impairment or a combination of impairments is severe at Step Two if it “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. § 404.1520(c). ... The court notes at the outset that to the extent the ALJ erred in his Step Two finding regarding Bombard’s osteoarthritis, any error is harmless. “Errors at Step Two are harmless as long as the ALJ found at least one severe impairment, continued on with the sequential analysis, and considered the effect of all impairments on the claimant’s functional capacity.” ... Therefore, any error at Step Two regarding Bombard’s osteoarthritis is harmless.

At Step 2, the 12-month duration requirement is not part of the definition of a severe impairment.

Meuser v. Colvin · filed 2016-10-03(a)(4)(ii)

But this duration requirement is not part of the definition of “severe.”

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to show that an impairment or combination of impairments is more than a slight abnormality and has more than a minimal effect on the ability to work.

Ault v. SSA · filed 2012-01-10(c)

“To meet the severity requirement, the claimant must show that an impairment or combination of impairments amounts to more than a slight abnormality and has more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to work.” ... “This burden is a de minimis burden, designed to do no more than screen out groundless claims.”

At step two of the disability analysis, the agency determines whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment or a severe combination of impairments; failure to classify additional impairments as severe is harmless when they are considered in the later steps.

Fisk v. Barnhart · filed 2007-11-09(a)(4)(ii)

The Commissioner argues that the district court erred in holding that the ALJ committed reversible legal error at step two of the five-step disability analysis, which asks whether the individual has a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment” or “a combination of impairments that is severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Because the ALJ considered these impairments when determining Fisk’s residual functional capacity, “[w]e find it unnecessary to decide” whether the ALJ erred in classifying the impairments as non-severe at step two. Maziarz, 837 F.2d at 244. We thus reverse the district court’s contrary conclusion on this point.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether an impairment significantly limits the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities before finding it severe.

Jones v. Barnhart · filed 2002-03-13(c)

In order to determine whether an impairment is severe, an ALJ must determine whether the impairment significantly limits a person’s ability to perform basic work activities.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) permits ending the disability evaluation only when the impairment has no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Hudson v. Bowen · filed 1989-03-15(c)

This regulation requires a finding of “not disabled” if the claimant does not “have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Thus, the sequential evaluation process can be terminated at step two only in cases where there is no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work. ... We hold that the AU applied too stringent a standard at step two.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant at step two to show an impairment or combination of impairments that more than minimally limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Tonev v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-10-15(c)

To survive step two, claimant must prove that his impairments would have more than minimal limiting effects on his ability to perform basic work activities.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as not severe when it does not significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Rosado v. Sullivan · filed 1992-10-08(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 404.1521(a), an impairment or combination of impairments is not “severe” if it does not “significantly limit [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”

Section 404.1520 permits ending the sequential evaluation at step two only when an impairment or combination of impairments has no more than a minimal effect on the claimant's ability to work; vocational factors need not be considered if that threshold is not met.

Nguyen v. Chater · filed 1996-02-02(a)-(f)

The ALJ applied the familiar five-step analysis prescribed in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f). ... We adhere to the principle that the sequential evaluation process may only be terminated at step two when an impairment or combination of impairments would have no more than a minimal effect on the claimant's ability to work. Henderson v. Sullivan, 930 F.2d 19, 21 (8th Cir. 1991). Denial of benefits at step two "is justified only for `those claimants whose medical impairments are so slight that it is unlikely they would be found to be disabled even if their age, education, and experience were taken into account.'" Siemers, 47 F.3d at 302 (quoting Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 153 (1987)).

At step two, an impairment is not severe when it does not significantly limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; remand is unnecessary when the record clearly satisfies both this regulatory standard and the Stone slight-impairment standard.

LeBlanc v. Chater · filed 1996-03-26(c)

The standard under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) provides that an impairment is not severe if it does not “significantly limit[] [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... Therefore, we hold that where the record in a disability insurance case clearly establishes that both the Stone and CFR standard is satisfied, remand is not necessary even though the district court’s decision fails to expressly articulate the “slight impairment” standard established in Stone.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as non-severe only when it does not significantly limit basic work activities, making the inquiry a minimal-effect screen.

Smolen v. Chater · filed 1996-03-29(c)

According to the Commissioner’s regulations, “an impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] physical ability to do basic work activities,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a)(1991). ... An impairment or combination of impairments can be found “not severe” only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has “no more than a minimal effect on an individuals ability to work.”

At step two, a claimant must show that a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities; the mere presence of a medical condition is insufficient.

Justice v. Chater · filed 1996-05-22(c)

A claimant bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments which “significantly limits” “the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(b); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987); Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 751 (10th Cir. 1988)(holding “the claimant must make a threshold showing that his medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits his ability to do basic work activities”). The mere presence of a medical condition is not enough, the condition must also impact claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Section 404.1520 permits the sequential disability evaluation to end at step two only when the impairment has no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Thang T. NGUYEN, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Appellee · filed 1996-04-18(c)

We adhere to the principle that the sequential evaluation process may only be terminated at step two when an impairment or combination of impairments would have no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Section 404.1520(c) requires only a de minimis showing at step two that an impairment is severe and significantly limits basic work activities, screening out only wholly groundless claims.

Childrey v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-07-25(c)

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to prove that the impairment is severe and that it significantly limits her ability to perform basic work activities. ... An impairment can be considered nonsevere only if the impairment would not affect the plaintiff's ability to work regardless of her age, education, and work experience. ... This court views the step two severity regulation codified at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 404.1521 "as a de minimis hurdle in the disability determination process." ... It is to be used as "an administrative convenience to screen out claims that are 'totally groundless' solely from a medical standpoint."

Section 404.1520(c) requires only a de minimis showing at step two that medically determinable impairments, considered in combination, significantly limit the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities; impairments found severe must then be considered in assessing residual functional capacity.

Railey v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1998-01-09(c)

In evaluating plaintiff's physical impairments, the ALJ determined that plaintiff's knee condition was the only "physical impairment which might be considered disabling," citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (setting out step-two requirement that impairment or combination of impairments be "severe"). See Appellant's App. at 438. Thereafter, the ALJ made no mention of plaintiff's back impairment, wrist impairment, or respiratory impairment. This analysis constituted legal error. ... At step two, a claimant is required only to make a "de minimus showing" that her medically determinable impairments, in combination, are severe enough to significantly limit her ability to perform work-related activity. ... At this stage, the ALJ may not dismiss any of a claimant's impairments as nonsevere and disregard them thereafter. ... The record shows plaintiff's medically determinable knee impairment, back impairment, wrist impairment, and respiratory impairment, when combined with her mental impairment, were medically severe, in that they significantly limited her ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 1520(c). The ALJ was then required to assess these impairments further to determine the effect, if any, they had on plaintiff's residual functional capacity. His failure to do so requires reversal of the decision.

An impairment is severe when it significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Borton v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 1998-05-04(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is severe if it "significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to show that a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits basic work activities; the determination is based on medical factors alone, without vocational factors.

Grooms v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1999-01-13(c)

This determination is governed by the Secretary's severity regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c) (1986), is based on medical factors alone, and, consequently, does not include consideration of such vocational factors as age, education, and work experience. ... Because claimant failed to make the threshold showing that her impairments in 1985-86 were severe enough to interfere with her ability to do basic work activities, there was no need for the ALJ to continue to the next steps in the evaluative process.

At step two, the claimant must show an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the ability to do basic work activities, and the severity determination considers medical factors alone rather than vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience.

Cavenaugh v. Apfel · filed 1999-02-09(c)

At step two, it is the claimant’s burden to demonstrate an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits his or her ability to do basic work activities. See § 404.1520(c). The step two severity determination is based on medical factors alone, and “does not include consideration of such vocational factors as age, education, and work experience.” Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988).

Section 404.1520 requires a five-step sequential disability evaluation; at step two, the claimant need only make a de minimis showing of a medically severe impairment, and the evaluation must continue when the evidence does not clearly show the impairment has no more than a minimal effect on basic work activities.

Timmons v. SSA · filed 1999-08-17

At step two, the claimant has the burden of establishing that he suffers from a medically severe impairment which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Although the burden lies with the claimant, he need only make a de minimis showing to surpass a denial of benefits at step two. ... Thus, an ALJ may deny a claim for benefits at step two: only if the evidence shows that the individual's impairments, when considered in combination, are not medically severe, i.e., do not have more than a minimal effect on the person's physical or mental ability(ies) to perform basic work activities. If such a finding is not clearly established by medical evidence, however, adjudication must continue through the sequential evaluation process.

At the second step, an impairment is non-severe only if it does not significantly limit a claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, and the ALJ must evaluate all relevant evidence before making that finding.

Dunn v. SSA · filed 1999-12-10(c)

The ALJ's apparent failure to weigh other relevant evidence of mental impairment is particularly troubling in this case because the ALJ found that Dunn's mental impairment was non-severe at the second step of the five-step seguential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). An impairment should be considered non-severe only if it does not significantly limit a claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See McDonald v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 795 F.2d 1118, 1121 n.3, 1124-25 (1st Cir. 1986); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(a), 416.921(a). Because the severity step is essentially a threshold reguirement devised to screen out insubstantial claims, see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 153 (1987); McDonald, 795 F.2d at 1124-25, an ALJ should take special care to evaluate all relevant evidence before finding an impairment nonsevere.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including a Step Two determination whether the claimant has a severe impairment before proceeding.

Sanchez v. Apfel · filed 2000-02-11(c)

Regulations promulgated by the Commissioner establish a five-step sequential evaluation process to be followed by the ALJ in a disability case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. In the First Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; if so, a finding of nondisability is made and the claim is denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If the claimant is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, in the Second Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments significantly limiting her from performing basic work activities; if not, a finding of nondisability is made and the claim is denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

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

Twist v. Massanari · filed 2002-01-24(c)

At step two, the claimant bears the burden to demonstrate an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits his ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant at step two to show that an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Williamson v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-17(c)

At step two, Mr. Williamson bore the burden to demonstrate an impairment or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [his] physical . . . ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

At step two, an impairment is not severe only if it does not significantly limit the claimant’s physical ability to perform basic work activities.

Newell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-10-14(c)

According to the Commissioner’s regulations, “an impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] physical ability to do basic work activities.”

At step two, an impairment is not severe only if it has no more than a minimal effect on basic work activities; if the evidence shows more than a slight abnormality, the sequential evaluation must continue.

Newell v. Comm Social Security · filed 2003-10-31(c)

According to the Commissioner’s regulations, “an impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] physical ability to do basic work activities.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a)(1991)). ... The step-two inquiry is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims. ... An impairment or combination of impairments can be found “not severe” only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities which have “no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.” ... Only those claimants with slight abnormalities that do not significantly limit any “basic work activity” can be denied benefits at step two. ... If the evidence presented by the claimant presents more than a “slight abnormality,” the step-two requirement of “severe” is met, and the sequential evaluation process should continue. ... Reasonable doubts on severity are to be resolved in favor of the claimant.

At step two, the regulation requires determining whether an impairment or combination expected to last at least 12 months limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Guadagno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-23(c)

As a general matter, at step two of the sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether an impairment or combination of impairments that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe at step two only when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

(SS) Pires v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-27(c)

Without any indication that plaintiff’s hypertension “significantly limits [his] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), the undersigned cannot conclude that the ALJ erred at step two.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires determining whether the claimant's medically determinable impairment is severe and, if so, considering its limitations at the later steps of the sequential evaluation.

Haynes v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-03(c)

Thus, the ALJ’s failure to properly consider Plaintiff’s impairments at step two cannot be considered harmless, because he confined his analysis to mental impairments at subsequent steps of the sequential analysis. The ALJ’s selective review of the record permeated the ALJ’s entire decision and impacted the analysis at the subsequent steps. Based on the foregoing, this case must be remanded in order to determine whether all of Plaintiff's claimed impairments were medically determinable and severe, and, if so, to consider any credible limitations arising out of Plaintiff's impairments at all subsequent steps in the sequential evaluation.

Section 404.1520’s step-two inquiry asks whether an impairment or combination of impairments is severe; once any impairment qualifies as severe, the claim advances to step three.

Basile v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-03(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, an ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe “if it does not significantly limit [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522(a), 416.922(a). ... This inquiry “acts as a filter in that the finding of any severe impairment ... is enough to satisfy the requirement of step two and allow the ALJ to proceed to step three.” ... With this standard in mind, even if the ALJ should have characterized Plaintiff’s cervical spinal stenosis, bilateral shoulder pain, thoracic spine pain, and tachycardia/carotid bruit as severe impairments, any error is harmless because the ALJ characterized other impairments – fibromyalgia and migraine headaches – as severe. (Tr. 18).

At step two, § 404.1520 requires consideration of medically determinable impairments and permits a finding of not disabled when no severe impairment satisfies the duration requirement; a severe impairment significantly limits basic work activities.

Gillespie v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-07(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1521, 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 416.921. “The Supreme Court has held that this step of the disability evaluation is a de minimis threshold.” ... An ALJ can satisfy step two by finding a severe impairment and then proceeding through the rest of the sequential analysis. ... A severe impairment causes more than a minimal effect on one’s ability to function. § 404.1520(c). ... An ALJ will find a claimant not disabled at step two if she “do[es] not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement. . , or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement.” § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff's migraines to be nonsevere, because they responded to medication and treatment, did not require significant medical treatment and did not result in any continuous exertional or non-exertional functional limitations. (R. at 23.) Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff's migraines. ... Plaintiff points to no evidence to support her claim that her migraines caused more than a minimal effect on her ability to function and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s classification of Plaintiff's migraines as nonsevere. Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s assessment, because they responded to medication and treatment, did not require significant medical treatment and did not result in any continuous exertional or non-exertional functional limitations. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff's migraines to be non-severe.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment, applying the rule that a non-severe impairment does not significantly limit basic work activities.

Brewster v. Saul · filed 2021-09-08(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Under the Social Security Administration regulations, “[a]n impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522(a), 416.922(a). ... The ALJ is assumed to “have applied an incorrect standard to the severity requirement unless the correct standard is set forth by reference to [Stone] or another of the same effect, or by an express statement that the construction [the Fifth Circuit] give[s] to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (1984) is used.” Id. at 1106. ... The Court finds that the ALJ clearly articulated the correct legal standards as outlined in the Social Security Administration regulations and by the Fifth Circuit. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in finding that Brewster’s Stevens-Johnson Syndrome was non-severe.

Section 404.1520 requires an ALJ to distinguish severe from non-severe impairments at step two, treating an impairment as non-severe when it has no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

(SS) Knak v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-08(a)(4)

At step two, the ALJ is to distinguish between those impairments that are “severe” and “non-severe.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. A “severe” impairment is one that significantly limits the physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. Id. “An impairment or combination of impairments may be found ‘not severe’ only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.” ... The court disagrees. ... These records constitute substantial evidence, and the ALJ’s findings of only a “slight abnormality” of plaintiff’s left hand, which had “no more than a minimal effect” on plaintiff’s ability to perform work activities, was proper.

Section 404.1520 treats an impairment as severe at step two only when it significantly limits basic work activities; a slight abnormality that does not do so is not severe.

Daniel v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-13(a)(4)(i), (c)

Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner looks to see “whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.” Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2003); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4) (i). “An impairment is not severe if it amounts only to a slight abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1520a(d), 416.920(c), 416.920a(d). ... Here, in contrast, the ALJ considered fibromyalgia and determined it was not a significant impairment based upon the medical evidence in the record. (Tr. 13). The ALJ noted that NP Norris included a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, but that it was not indicated anywhere else in the records. (Tr. 13). The record also did not include a trigger points assessment meeting the requirements for diagnosis under SSR 12-2p. (Tr. 13). See SSR 12-2p (in order to have a medically interminable impairment, a claimant must have “[a]t least 11 positive tender points on physical examination”). In addition, Daniel described her pain as “everywhere all over her body,” which did not correlate to fibromyalgia pain in specific locations. (Tr. 13, 38). Again, contrary to Haynes, the ALJ specifically held that, based upon these factors, “the claimant’s fibromyalgia [was] a nonsevere impairment.” (Tr. 13).

Section 404.1520(c) requires the Commissioner to determine at step two whether an impairment significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, with impairments that do not meet that threshold treated as non-severe.

Toppen v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-15(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... Even if the ALJ should have determined that Plaintiff’s cervical and thoracic spondylosis, tricompartmental degenerative disease of the right knee, COPD and pneumonia, and renal failure and hepatic steatosis are severe impairments, any error would be harmless because the step was resolved in Plaintiff’s favor. ... Thus, the ALJ’s step two finding is legally sufficient. Plaintiff is not entitled to remand on these grounds.

Section 404.1520 requires a claimant to show a severe medically determinable impairment at step two, and an impairment with no more than a minimal effect on the ability to work does not satisfy that requirement.

Buckentin v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-15(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At the second step, the SSA considers “the medical severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). It is a claimant’s burden to demonstrate a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments at step two of the sequential evaluation. See Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F. 3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “If the impairment would have no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work, then it does not satisfy the requirement of step two.” Id. at 707 (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). The severity showing “is not an onerous requirement for the claimant to meet, but it is also not a toothless standard.” Id. at 708 (citations omitted).

At step two, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is severe, limits basic work activities, and meets the duration requirement.

Jeter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-17(a)(4)(ii) and (c)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, that is severe, meaning that it limits his or her ability to do basic work activities, and meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c); 416.920(a)(4)(ii) and (c). ... Here, this Court is unable to conclude that the ALJ’s step two error is harmless because the ALJ did not acknowledge or discuss Plaintiff’s chronic back pain during subsequent steps of the disability analysis, including in evaluating the RFC. ... Accordingly, this Court finds that this matter should be remanded for the ALJ to examine whether Plaintiff’s chronic back pain is a medically determinable impairment, whether it is severe or non-severe in nature, and the limiting effects it may have on his RFC.

At Step Two, a claimant must show that he has at least one severe impairment.

Dayem v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At Step Two, a claimant has the burden to show that he has at least one “severe impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c).

At step two, a finding that an impairment is severe means it significantly limits basic work activities, so the ALJ must explain the resulting limitations in the RFC or find the impairment non-severe.

Nance v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-22(c)

A determination that migraines are a severe impairment means the migraines significantly limited Nance’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1522(a); Raduc v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 380 F. App’x 896, 898 (11th Cir. 2010) (“By definition, a severe impairment limits significantly a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.”). ... The ALJ found migraines were a severe impairment at step two. (Tr. 23). So, the ALJ “needed to articulate what [Nance’s] significant limitations were from that impairment, or if there were not any such limitations, state that the headaches were a non-severe impairment. The [ALJ] cannot have it both ways.”

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires an ALJ to consider the severity of a claimant's impairments at step two of the disability analysis.

Mitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-22(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, an ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment and to consider all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-23(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant has a “severe” impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... When the ALJ fails to consider the claimant’s non-severe impairment when assessing the RFC, a step two error is not harmless.

Section 404.1520(c) requires a severe impairment to significantly limit a claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Lopez v. Saul · filed 2021-09-27(c)

A “severe impairment” must “significantly limit[]” the claimant’s “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c). ... Step two, then, is “a de minimis screening device [used] to dispose of groundless claims,” ... Here, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff was not suffering any medically determinable severe impairments.

At Step Two, § 404.1520 requires the ALJ to assess the severity of the claimant's impairments using a de minimis standard that screens out only clearly insubstantial claims.

Chapman v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-27(a)(4)(ii)

A Step Two determination requires the ALJ to determine the severity of the plaintiff’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... The purpose of the Step Two severity analysis is to screen out only the weakest claims. ... In summary, “[t]he standard at step two is quite low,” O'Connor v. Saul, No. 1:18-CV-00740 CJS, 2020 WL 1242408, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2020), and the “claimant has a minimal burden at step two as the severity regulation is designed to eliminate only clearly insubstantial claims.” Serrano v. Astrue, 645 F. Supp. 2d 64, 66 (D. Conn. 2009).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether an impairment is severe and meets the duration requirement; a non-severe impairment may still be considered in the later sequential evaluation.

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-27(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine that the claimant has a severe mental or physical impairment that has or is expected to last twelve months or will result in death. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(ii); 416.909, 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(ii). ... Although the ALJ found that Johnson’s degenerative disc disease was not a severe medical impairment, in going through the sequential evaluation process to determine which alleged limitations were supported by the evidence, he expressly considered Johnson’s complaints of back pain, joint aches, and muscle spasms. (Tr. 19-20.) See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. ... Thus, the ALJ did not err in finding that Johnson’s back pain and degenerative disc disease were not severe impairments.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to determine severity at step two and to consider non-severe impairments at the subsequent steps of the disability evaluation.

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

The Act sets forth a five-step inquiry to determine whether a person is disabled. See id. at § 404.1520(a)(4). The steps must be followed in order, and if a person is determined not to be disabled at any step, the inquiry stops. Id. ... Second, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia diagnosis at the subsequent steps of the sequential evaluation. ... We find that the ALJ appropriately considered Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments, including fibromyalgia, at the subsequent steps of the sequential evaluation. Thus, the ALJ did not err in assessing Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia diagnosis.

At step two, if a claimant's impairment does not significantly limit basic work activities, the Commissioner must find the claimant not disabled and stop the sequential evaluation without considering age, education, or work experience.

Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-27(c)

Step two of the sequential process calls for the ALJ to make a determination whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is “severe” as defined by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... And, as correctly noted by the magistrate judge, if the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, then the Commissioner must enter a finding that the claimant is not disabled and need not continue further through the remaining steps. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (“If you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled. We will not consider your age, education, and work experience.”

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequential process to evaluate disability, including determining at step two whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments.

Kallas v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2021-09-29

At step two, the ALJ was required to determine whether Plaintiff had any severe medically determinable impairments, or any severe combinations of medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2016). ... For these reasons, I suggest that the ALJ’s step two findings are supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires a claimant to show that a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments is severe and meets the duration requirement.

Oliver v. Saul · filed 2021-09-30(a)(4)(ii)

The second step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, that is severe and meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... But even if the ALJ should have included Petitioner’s migraine headaches as a severe impairment at step two, that error is harmless because the ALJ resolved step two in Petitioner’s favor and continued with the sequential evaluation process.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires determining whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment and whether it significantly limits basic work activities for twelve consecutive months.

Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-30(c)

Step two demands a determination of two things: (1) whether a claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, and (2) whether the impairments or combination of impairments is severe, that is, that it significantly limits or is expected to significantly limit the ability to perform basic work-related activities for twelve consecutive months. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140–41 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & 404.1520(c); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. ... I have summarized above the evidence in the record as to Pérez’s renal condition and after reviewing it, I am compelled to conclude that the record supports a finding of non-severity. I discuss below. ... From the overall evidence in the record, it is reasonable to conclude that Pérez has handled her renal condition for the most part of her life and that condition alone had not impeded her from working for fourteen years. Other conditions, which the ALJ and the AC did find as severe and limiting, were considered and so tabulated into the RFC assessment ultimately used by the Commissioner to administratively resolve this case. I therefore find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the AC’s decision as to Pérez’s sole argument in this complaint.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ at Step Two to consider the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments, and a severe impairment is one that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Step Two of the sequential evaluation requires the ALJ to “consider the medical severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). The claimant bears the burden at this step to show that she has a severe impairment. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

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

(SS) Caglia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-04(c)

Assuming Plaintiff met the burden of show his depression was a medically determinable impairment during the adjudicated period, he must next show the impairment was severe. Bowen, 482 U.S. at 153 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). The Ninth Circuit determined that “[t]he mere existence of an impairment is insufficient proof of a disability.” Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 1993). In other words, even a medical diagnosis does not make an impairment “severe.” ... For an impairment to be “severe,” it must “significantly limit[]” the claimant’s “ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Basic work activities are “the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” Id., §§ 404.1522(b), 416.922(b). These activities include “[u]nderstanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions;” “[u]se of judgment;” “[r]esponding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations;” and “[d]ealing with changes in a routine work setting.” Id. An impairment is “not severe” if the evidence establishes the impairment has “no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to do work.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff does not identify any functional limitations—such as difficulties with memory or concentration— that may be attributed to depression, he fails to carry the burden at step two. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 153; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires a claimant at step two to show that a medically determinable impairment significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities to qualify as severe.

Marek v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-13(c)

At step two, a claimant must make a threshold showing that her medically determinable impairments significantly limit her ability to perform basic work activities and are therefore severe. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 145 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(a)(4) uses a sequential evaluation in which step two screens for severe impairments, and failing to identify an additional severe impairment is harmless when the impairment is considered at later steps.

Motter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-21(a)(4)

As the Sixth Circuit and this Court have observed several times, step two of the evaluation process is merely meant to “screen out totally groundless claims,” and it is well settled that where an ALJ “considers all of a claimant’s impairments in the remaining steps of the disability determination, any perceived failure to find additional severe impairments at step two ‘[does] not constitute reversible error.’”

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

Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-26(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” at Step Two if it “significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Cyman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-09(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Desmond v. Astrue, No. 11-cv-0818, 2012 WL 6648625, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c)). ... Where the record establishes the presence of multiple impairments, and the ALJ finds at step two that some impairments (but not others) are severe, thereby allowing plaintiff's claim to proceed through the sequential evaluation process, any error in the ALJ’s severity analysis must be considered harmless. ... ALJ Cordovani proceeded through the five steps of the sequential evaluation followed by all the steps of the secondary DAA analysis.

At step two, section 404.1520 requires consideration of the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments and directs a finding of not disabled if none is severe.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-12(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential disability evaluation process, “the medical severity” of a claimant’s impairments is considered. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant has no “severe medically determinable” impairment, then he or she will be found not disabled. Id.

Section 404.1520 requires disability claims to proceed through a five-step sequential evaluation, including a step-two determination of whether the claimant has a severe impairment.

Rosado v. Saul · filed 2021-11-29(a)(4)(ii)

The Commissioner evaluates a claimant's impairment under a five-step sequential evaluation process set forth in the regulations promulgated by the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v). ... If the hearing officer determines at any step of the evaluation that the claimant is or is not disabled, the analysis does not continue to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). ... Because the treatment records supported the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiff's vision had significantly improved after the cataract removal surgery (A.R. at 67, 74), the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff's cataracts to be a non-severe impairment at step two.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Edwards v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-07(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

At step two, an impairment is severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, but failing to identify one severe impairment is harmless when the ALJ identifies other severe impairments and considers all limitations in the RFC.

Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-10(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, an ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... With this standard in mind, even if the ALJ should have characterized Plaintiff’s unspecified neurodevelopmental disorder as a severe impairment, any error is harmless because the ALJ characterized other impairments – diabetes mellitus; obesity; mild persistent asthma; depressive disorder; and bipolar disorder – as severe. (Tr. 37). The ALJ then advanced to step three of the sequential evaluation. See Ball, 714 F. App’x at 993. With step two satisfied, the issue then becomes whether the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff’s limitations, including unspecified neurodevelopmental disorder, in assessing the RFC.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Heaney v. Saul · filed 2021-12-10(c)

To be considered severe, an impairment must significantly limit a claimant's ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(c). ... Ample evidence here supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s depression was not severe. ... This evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s depression was non-severe and also supported the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Wilson’s more limited findings of functional impairment.

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

(SS) Cowan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-22(c)

For an impairment to be “severe,” it must “significantly limit[]” the claimant’s “ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires a claimant to show a medically determinable impairment that significantly limits basic work activities; an impairment with no more than a minimal effect is not severe.

(SS) Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-22(c)

At step two, a claimant has the burden to make a “threshold showing” (1) she has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments and (2) the impairment or combination of impairments is severe. ... For an impairment to be “severe,” it must “significantly limit[]” the claimant’s “ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... Because the ALJ ignored significant, probative evidence related to Plaintiff’s mental health treatment and objective findings on examination, the ALJ erred in evaluating the record related to the severity of her depression.

At step two, an impairment is severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

McQuillen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-29(c)

A severe impairment is defined as “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), and which lasts or can be expected to last “for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Simone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-11(c)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits his physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Kelley v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-11(c)

At Step Two, a social security claimant bears the burden of showing through medical evidence that he or she has a severe impairment. To be “severe,” a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments must “significantly limit[]” his or her “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... In sum, the ALJ’s reliance on Dr. Moore’s opinion to determine that Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder was not severe at Step Two was in error. This error was harmful because the ALJ did not continue her sequential analysis of Plaintiff’s impairments beyond Step Two.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires treating an impairment as severe when it has more than a minimal effect on a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, so the sequential evaluation must proceed.

Black v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-20(c)

At this step, every impairment is “severe” unless the medical evidence “clearly establishe[s]” that the alleged impairment has only a “slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.” ... If a claimant demonstrates that he suffers from an impairment that affects his ability to perform basic work activities, “the ALJ must find that the impairment is ‘severe’ and move to the next step in the SSA’s five-step process.”

Section 404.1520(c) requires an ALJ to screen at step two for a severe impairment or combination that significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

FIELDS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-24(c)

At step two, an ALJ determines whether the plaintiff has a “severe impairment” or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Based on this record, Plaintiff has not persuaded this Court that the ALJ erred at step two when finding that Plaintiff’s migraine headaches were not severe or in failing to include additional or different limitations in the RFC at step four, as discussed in greater detail below.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities; the mere presence or diagnosis of an impairment is insufficient.

Runfola v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-28(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the plaintiff has a severe impairment that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Although the Second Circuit has held that this step is limited to “screen[ing] out de minimis claims,” Dixon v. Shalala, 54 F.3d 1019, 1030 (2d Cir.1995), the “mere presence of a disease or impairment, or establishing that a person has been diagnosed or treated for a disease or impairment” is not, by itself, sufficient to render a condition severe.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only if it significantly limits a claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Benge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-31(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” at Step Two if it “significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that vertigo significantly limited his ability to do basic work activities, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). The ALJ therefore did not err in not finding vertigo to be a severe impairment.

Section 404.1520 requires the agency to determine at step two whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is severe, meaning that it significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Lindsay v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-31(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, the agency determines whether the claimant’s alleged impairment or combination of impairments is “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c). An impairment or combination of impairments is severe if it “significantly limits her ability to do basic work activities.”

Section 404.1520 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step process to determine disability, including deciding at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment.

East v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-02(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits his/her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. ... The ALJ reasonably found Plaintiff’s refusal of a behavioral health referral supported the conclusion that Plaintiff’s mental impairments not severe.

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to assess the severity of a claimant’s impairments at step two and treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Stafford v. Saul · filed 2022-02-09(c)

At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ is required to assess the severity of the claimant’s physical and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). An impairment is severe if it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

At step two, § 404.1520 treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

(SS) Huff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-10

A “severe” impairment or combination of impairments is one that significantly limits physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. ... At a minimum, however, the physician-recommended double voiding practice and Plaintiff’s associated testimony as to his abnormal urinary frequency is more than “a slight abnormality” with a “minimal effect on an individual’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” See Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (describing the nature of a non-severe impairment). Accordingly, the ALJ erred in finding the condition non-severe. Id.

Section 404.1520(c) makes step two a de minimis screen: a claimant is not disabled at that step when no impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits basic work activities.

FENNIMORE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-02-14(c)

The language of step two is directed toward applicants rather than adjudicators: “‘If you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we [the Social Security Administration] will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled.’” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c)). ... All that is required for a claimant to meet the step two standard is to demonstrate something beyond “‘a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities which would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to work.’” Id. (quoting SSR 85–28). Any doubt as to whether this showing has been made is to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to consider the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments.

Bailey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-02-16(a)(4)(ii)

As noted, the ALJ “must ‘consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s)’” at Step Two. ... In this case, Bailey claims that the evidence, and particularly Dr. Goldstein’s opinion that the ALJ discounted, established the severity of his asthma. But, as in Davis, the ALJ clearly articulated reasons for discounting Dr. Goldstein’s opinion in light of the exam results Dr. Goldstein reported and the medical records of Bailey’s visits to various clinics in the years leading up to his hearing—which reasonably supported a finding of nonseverity. ... While Bailey’s burden to establish the severity of his asthma was mild, the court is not to reweigh this evidence or substitute its own judgment, and substantial evidence supports the finding that Bailey’s asthma was not severe.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ, at step two, to determine whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment.

Slusher v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-28(a)(4)(ii)

As previously stated, at step two of the five-step sequential disability analysis, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... This Court finds that the ALJ did not err in determining that Plaintiff’s mental impairments were non-severe because the ALJ expressly incorporated the special technique for evaluating mental impairments in accordance with the regulations.

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4) requires the ALJ to assess the severity of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments and find the claimant not disabled if no severe impairment or combination meets the duration requirement.

Rodriguez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-28(a)(4)

At step two, the ALJ must “consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s). If [the claimant] do[es] not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement . . . or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, we will find that [the claimant is] not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

At step two, the regulation requires determining whether the claimant has a severe impairment, meaning an impairment that significantly limits basic work activities.

Lumpkin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-03(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant has a “severe” impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & 416.920(a)(4)(ii). To determine if a claimant has a severe impairment, the ALJ must find that an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do “basic work activities.” See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not err at step two when he found that Lumpkin’s mental impairments were not severe.

At step two, the regulation requires a claimant to show an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the ability to do work.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-07(a)(4)(ii)

To satisfy step two, a claimant must show that he suffers from an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment.

Benton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-09(c)

At step two, the ALJ must determine if the claimant suffers from any impairments that are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment, meaning one that is more than a slight abnormality minimally affecting the ability to work.

Cossette v. Social Security · filed 2022-03-09(a)(4)(ii)

Step two of the sequential evaluation process requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant suffers from a severe impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). At this step, “[a]n impairment can be considered as not severe only if it is a slight abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work[.]” Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 920 (11th Cir. 1984).

At Step Two, the regulation requires the ALJ to consider the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments and whether an impairment significantly limits basic work abilities.

Protham-Sweetnam v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-14(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Step Two of the sequential evaluation requires the ALJ to “consider the medical severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... However, in this case, the court cannot find any error to be harmless—the ALJ’s brief mention of Plaintiff’s allegations is insufficient in light the substantial evidence concerning Plaintiff’s diabetes and its resulting limitations pointed out by the Plaintiff, which were not addressed or mentioned by the ALJ. ... Therefore, the court is constrained to remand this matter for further consideration of Plaintiff’s diabetes.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ, at step two of the sequential evaluation, to consider the severity of the claimant’s impairments and determine whether a severe impairment meets the duration requirement.

Black v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-15(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the “sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled . . . the ALJ must ‘consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s).’” Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1265 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii))). If the claimant does “not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement . . . or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement . . . [the ALJ] will find that [the claimant] [is] not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520(c) treats step two as satisfied when the claimant has a severe impairment, so omission of another impairment is harmless if its limitations are considered in the remaining analysis.

Southworth v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-21(c)

At step two, the ALJ had to determine whether the Plaintiff had a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... In Plaintiff’s case, the ALJ found six severe impairments at step two of the analysis: fibromyalgia, Crohn’s disease, interstitial cystitis, depression, anxiety, and conversion disorder. (Tr. 18.) With a finding of several severe impairments, Plaintiff passed through the step-two filter. The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s arthritis in the subsequent steps of the analysis and accounted for it in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC. (Tr. 20-27.) ... Based on this record, the Court finds that the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s inflammatory polyarthritis throughout the analysis and incorporated corresponding limitations into Plaintiff’s RFC. Accordingly, any error by the ALJ in omitting Plaintiff’s arthritis from the severe impairments in step two was harmless.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Solano v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-21(c)

For an impairment to be “severe,” it must significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, or the “abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(b).

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits a claimant's ability to perform basic work activities, but an error in failing to classify an impairment as severe is harmless when the ALJ considers it in the later sequential evaluation and residual functional capacity assessment.

Beckwith v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-23(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Second, the claimant must prove the impairment is “severe” in that it “significantly limits [the] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities . . . .” Id. at §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... The ALJ adequately considered Beckwith’s migraine headaches at step four despite failing to list the condition as a severe impairment at step two. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err at step two of the sequential evaluation process. Even if he did err, the error was harmless, and his failure to characterize Beckwith’s migraines as a severe impairment does not provide a basis for overturning the administrative decision.

Section 404.1520(c) provides that a claimant is not disabled at step two when no impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities, so the disability analysis may end at that step.

Fox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-24(c)

Because Plaintiff did not have any "severe" impairments, the ALJ ended the analysis at step two. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Therefore, the ALJ correctly did not address Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the disability analysis to continue beyond Step Two when a claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that meets the duration requirement.

Ray v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-28(a)(4)(ii)

The Court first considers the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments of borderline intellectual functioning, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder were not “severe,” and thus that the disability analysis could be terminated at Step Two. At Step Two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment,” or “a combination of impairments that is severe,” that lasted or is expected to last for at least twelve months. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 416.909; 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); 416.920(a)(4)(ii). “An impairment is not severe if it amounts only to a slight abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... The sequential evaluation process may be terminated at step two only when the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments would have no more than a minimal impact on her ability to work.

At step two, the regulation requires a claimant to show that a medically determinable impairment significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Wolf v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-29(c)

Step two requires that a claimant make a threshold showing that his medically determinable impairments significantly limit his ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 145 (1987).

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c) require the ALJ to identify medically determinable impairments and classify them as severe when they significantly limit basic work activities.

LEWIS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-30(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Step two of the disability determination requires the ALJ to assess whether the claimant has any medically determinable impairments based on objective medical evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d); 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); 20 CFR § 404.1521. The ALJ must then categorize each impairment as "severe" or "non-severe," which depends on whether the impairment, either individually or in combination with other impairments, "significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities" or not. 20 CFR § 404.1520(c); 20 CFR § 404.1522.

At step two, § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to assess the severity of a claimant’s impairments, and failure to find additional impairments severe is not reversible error when the ALJ proceeds and considers all impairments in determining the residual functional capacity.

Hughes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(a)(4)(ii)

Regardless, even if the Court found the ALJ erred, errors at step two of the sequential analysis will not necessarily require reversal, if the ALJ finds at least one “severe” impairment and therefore continues with the remaining steps in the sequential process. That is because in determining a plaintiff's residual functional capacity and ability to work later in the sequential process, the ALJ must consider even the impairments found not to be “severe” at step two. See Maziarz v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240, 244 (6th Cir. 1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

At step two, the regulation requires the agency to determine whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is severe, meaning it significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-30(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, the agency determines whether the claimant’s alleged impairment or combination of impairments is “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c). An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe,” within the meaning of the social security regulations, if it “significantly limits her ability to do basic work activities.”

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires determining whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments, using a de minimis screening inquiry focused on effects on the ability to perform basic work activities.

Hajostek v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(c)

Under step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920. At the step two inquiry, “the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant’s impairments on her ability to function, without regard to whether each alone was sufficiently severe.” ... The step two “inquiry is a de minimis screening device [used] to dispose of groundless claims.” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290. ... Although the ALJ determined these impairments were non-severe, she properly accounted for his vestibular disorder and gastrointestinal ailments in the residual functional capacity. ... In addition, step two was decided in Hajostek’s favor. Therefore, he was not prejudiced by the failure to include additional severe impairments, and any alleged error is harmless. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s finding was supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, the ALJ did not err considering Hajostek’s vestibular disorders, gastrointestinal symptoms, tinnitus, or mental impairments.

Section 404.1520's sequential evaluation requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment and, if so, proceed to the next step.

MANCO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-31(a)(4)(ii)

The Commissioner has promulgated a five-step, sequential analysis for evaluating a claimant’s alleged disability status for purposes of social security benefits, as outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). The analysis proceeds as follows: ... At step two, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has any “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment” that meets certain regulatory requirements. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A “severe impairment” is one that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” Id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the claimant lacks such an impairment, he is not disabled. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If he has such an impairment, the ALJ moves on to step three. ... Here, the Court finds that the ALJ did determine that Plaintiff had several “severe” impairments at Step Two before proceeding to Step Three, including her spine disorders, asthma, and degenerative joint disease (Baker’s cyst and tear of the lateral meniscus of the left knee). [AR at 18.] The Court also finds that the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s challenged impairments were not “severe” at Step Two is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1520(c) asks whether the claimant has at least one severe impairment that warrants proceeding to the next step, rather than whether every impairment was properly named.

WILSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-06(c)

The relevant question at Step Two is not how many severe impairments exist or whether they have all been properly named, but whether the claimant has at least one severe impairment that justifies the ALJ’s proceeding to the next step of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Even if it were in error to not designate back pain as severe, error is harmless if the ALJ finds in Plaintiff’s favor at Step Two. See Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 552–53 (3d Cir. 2005).

Section 404.1520 establishes a five-step disability evaluation and requires the analysis to proceed beyond step two when an impairment significantly limits basic work activities.

Leitz v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-11(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers the severity of the claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant suffers from “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [his or her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” the analysis proceeds to step three. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... Step two was found in Plaintiff’s favor where the ALJ found multiple severe impairments. ... Because the ALJ decided step two in Plaintiff’s favor, the ALJ was required to consider evidence of all impairments in assessing Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1520(c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; at Step Two, the severity inquiry is de minimis and screens out only the weakest cases.

Kupko v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-14(c)

A “severe” impairment is defined as, “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” 20 CFR §404.1520(c), and which meets the 12-month durational requirement. See 42 USC §423(d)(1)(A). Notwithstanding this verbiage, the Step Two evidentiary requirement is de minimis, and intended only to screen out the truly weakest of cases. Dixon v. Shalala, 54 F.3d 1019, 1030 (2d Cir. 1995).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) directs the ALJ to assess the severity of a claimant’s impairments before formulating the claimant’s RFC.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-19(a)(4)(ii)

Prior to formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). ... Based on the ALJ’s acknowledgment and review of Ms. Torres’ shoulder impairment history and medical record, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to not include explicit limitations in the RFC related to Ms. Torres’ shoulder impairments.

An omitted or erroneous severity determination at step two is harmless when the ALJ finds another severe impairment and proceeds beyond that step.

BAKOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-19(c)

The ALJ found Plaintiff had severe impairments of lumbar degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy state post discectomy and proceeded beyond step two. (AR 17 (citing 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c))). As such, it is of no consequence that the ALJ omitted a severity determination for other conditions and discounted the severity of others based on inconsistent treatment. See Salles, 229 F. App’x at 145 n.2.

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires an ALJ to assess the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments and find no disability when no severe impairment satisfies the duration requirements.

Cardona v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-25(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the evaluation process, an ALJ must consider the medical severity of a plaintiff’s impairments and if the ALJ finds that the plaintiff does not have a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments satisfying the duration requirements, the ALJ will find that the plaintiff is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

Section 404.1520(c) requires the Commissioner to treat an impairment as severe at step two when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Ounesivixay v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-03(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits his/her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 404.1520 requires the disability evaluation to proceed through ordered steps, with step two addressing whether the claimant has a severe impairment and excluding work activity from that severity determination.

Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-06(a)(4)

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ’s reliance on Plaintiff’s pre-onset work activity in his finding that Plaintiff failed to prove she suffered from any severe impairments was also based on legal error. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The step two severity determination is reached only if a claimant has not performed substantial gainful work activity; thus a claimant’s work activity is irrelevant to determining the severity of her medical impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) (i-ii). In fact, the Agency’s own regulations state that, “[i]n determining whether you have a disabling impairment, earnings are not considered.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1511(a). They further clarify that an adjudicator “will not consider your age, education, and work experience” when establishing severity at step two of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). After step one of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ’s next opportunity to discuss and rely on work activity only arises at step four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Having not identified a severe impairment, the ALJ never reached step four and could not rely on past work to make his determinations. Thus, Plaintiff’s ability to perform work activity before her disability onset date proved nothing in terms of her functional abilities under the Agency’s own rules. (Tr. 20-21, 202).

At step two, the ALJ determines whether an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Bobbitt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-09(c)

In general, at step two of the disability analysis, the ALJ determines whether the plaintiff has an impairment, or combination of impairments, that is “severe” within the meaning of the regulations, in that it “significantly limits” plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)1. ... Although Plaintiff was diagnosed with a back impairment and received treatment for his impairment, substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s step two determination that Plaintiff’s back impairment was not severe. ... Therefore, although the step two standard is de minimis, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination, and the determination is upheld.

At step two, § 404.1520 requires an impairment to last or be expected to last at least twelve months and significantly limit a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Bentley v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-10(a)(4)(ii), (c)

A severe impairment is any medically determined physical or mental impairment that lasts or is expected to last for a period of at least twelve months, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1509, and that “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” id. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1522(a). ... Thus, the ALJ properly assessed whether medical evidence in the relevant timeframe established Plaintiffs claimed severities, and in doing so noted the lack of such evidence.

Section 404.1520(c) treats an impairment as severe at step two only when it significantly limits a claimant's ability to perform basic work activities.

Harrington v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-13(c)

Thus, there is nothing showing either condition significantly limits Plaintiff's ability to do basic work activities and is thus "severe." See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Section 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c) require an ALJ at Step Two to determine whether an impairment significantly limits basic work activities, but failing to classify an additional impairment as severe is harmless when the claimant has another severe impairment and the evaluation proceeds.

Cumbee v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-19(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Step Two is a threshold determination of whether a claimant has a severe impairment (or combination of impairments) that meets the twelve-month duration requirement and significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). ... The ALJ addressed the slight abnormality standard in his consideration of Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments and indicated that he included any related limitations in his residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment. ... However, even if the ALJ erred in finding any of Plaintiff’s alleged impairments are not severe, any such error was harmless. ... Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff had severe impairments and proceeded to the next step of the sequential evaluation process. Accordingly, any allegation of error in this regard is harmless.

A severe impairment must last or be expected to last at least twelve months and significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-20(a)(4)(ii), (c)

A severe impairment is any medically determined physical or mental impairment that lasts or is expected to last for a period of at least twelve months, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), and that “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” id. § 404.1520(c). See id. § 404.1522(a). ... Thus, the ALJ did not err at step two in failing to find Plaintiff's chronic pain severe.

Section 404.1520 requires the ALJ to distinguish impairments that significantly limit basic work activities from impairments that have no more than a minimal effect on the ability to work.

(SS) Vincent v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-24(c)

At step two, the A LJ is to distinguish between those impairments that are “severe” and “non-severe.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. A “severe” impairment is one that significantly limits the physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. Id.

Section 404.1520(a)(ii) does not require an administrative law judge to designate each impairment as severe or non-severe, and step two is only a threshold inquiry for proceeding to the remaining steps.

Ladwig v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-26(a)(ii)

The regulations do not require an administrative law judge to designate each impairment as “severe” or “non-severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(ii). The severity standard at step two is merely a threshold inquiry that, if satisfied by the evidence presented by a claimant, allows the administrative law judge to proceed to the remaining steps of the evaluation process.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) treats an impairment causing only mild functional limitations as non-severe because a severe impairment must limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

PATEL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-05-26(c)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (noting that a “severe” impairment is one that limits claimant’s mental ability to perform basic work activities). Indeed, Gita does not explain, for example, how difficulty watching certain types of television translates to anything more than a mild limitation in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace. ... The Court accordingly will not disturb Judge Lee’s step two findings and affirms.

At step two, § 404.1520(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments.

Breedlove v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-06-16(c)

At Step Two of the sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether a claimant's impairments are severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).