20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

Residual functional capacity must account for physical impairments that affect a claimant’s ability to work.

Vandaveer · filed 2026-04-20(a)(1)

The ALJ’s Step Two analysis is not supported by the record, and consequently, the error at Step Two affected the ALJ’s RFC and Step Five Analysis because the ALJ failed to properly account for Plaintiff’s physical impairments.

An RFC assessment must account for a claimant’s physical impairments; a step-two error that causes the ALJ to overlook them affects the RFC.

Hunter · filed 2026-04-28(a)(1)

The ALJ’s Step Two analysis is not supported by the record, and consequently, the error at Step Two affected its credibility assessment, as well as the RFC and Step Five Analysis because the ALJ failed to properly account for Plaintiff’s physical impairments.

Section 404.1545(a)(4) requires an RFC assessment to consider a claimant’s ability to meet the physical requirements of work, including sitting.

(SS) Lepeltak v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-26(a)(4)

When assessing RFC, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(4). ... The ALJ was required to explain why the RFC’s lack of a limitation on sitting was not arbitrary.

Residual functional capacity need not include an at-home work limitation when substantial evidence supports finding that the claimant’s symptoms do not require it.

Berry v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-18(a)(1)

There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s RFC did not require a limitation to an at-home work environment.

An RFC finding that a claimant can perform frequent manipulative functions must be supported by an analysis of evidence about her hand and wrist limitations.

FRUGIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-07-14(a)(1)

That said, I agree with Lisa F. that the ALJ did not properly analyze her manipulative limitations and therefore that the RFC was not supported by substantial evidence and therefore will remand the case.

Section 404.1545(a)(4) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider the claimant’s ability to meet the physical requirements of work, including reaching.

Lovette v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-14(a)(4)

In determining the RFC, the ALJ considers an individual’s ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(4), 416.945(a)(4). ... However, ALJ Brinkley failed to sufficiently explain why Plaintiff retained greater frontal and lateral reaching ability with his left arm than the state agency consultants opined, especially in light of the ALJ’s remark that “the evidence supports further limitations . . . with additional reaching, pushing and pulling limits.” (R. 26.) ... Accordingly, remand is necessary.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence; an ALJ must develop the record when the evidence is ambiguous about whether a claimant needs a cane.

Avinger v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-17(a)(1)

The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [his or her] limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... The ALJ, however, failed to fully develop the record on whether a cane requirement should have been included in the ALJ’s RFC for Plaintiff. As a result, the ALJ’s RFC lacks the support of substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations.

James v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-18(a)(1)

One’s RFC is the “most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Based on the foregoing, the medical evidence does not establish Plaintiff possesses greater limitations than those included in the RFC.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations; the ALJ must weigh the evidence as a whole when assessing it.

HADZEGA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-12-23(a)

A claimant’s RFC is the most that he or she can do despite his or her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... In formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must weigh the evidence as a whole, including medical records, medical source opinions, a claimant’s subjective complaints, and descriptions of his or her own limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 404.1529, 404.1545. ... After careful review, the Court finds that the ALJ did not fail to include in his RFC adequate limitations related to Plaintiff’s left knee impairment.

An RFC assessment may leave sitting, standing, and walking unrestricted when substantial evidence supports those abilities despite reported pain.

Jules v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(a)

Against this backdrop, the undersigned finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination regarding Plaintiff’s unlimited ability to sit, walk, and stand.

An RFC assessment must account for the claimant’s physical limitations and be supported by substantial evidence.

Linen, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-20

In sum, the Court finds that the ALJ properly accounted for Plaintiffs physical limitations and this portion of the RFC is based on substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment may omit an alleged need for a cane when the record does not establish that the claimant needs one.

Gowins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-20(a)(1)

While Plaintiff points to medical records noting that she was observed to have difficulty with walking and balance due to damage to her left leg due to cerebral palsy (Tr. 377, 412), the records do not state that Plaintiff needs a cane either for ambulatory or balancing purposes. In fact, Plaintiff’s medical records often indicate that she had a normal gait, station, and balance (Tr. 417, 511). Further, as stated by the ALJ during Plaintiff’s consultative examination, Plaintiff admitted that she was able to walk without a cane (Tr. 48, 403, 405, 511). Therefore, the ALJ was justified in not considering Plaintiff’s alleged need for a cane in his RFC assessment.

An RFC assessment providing a sit/stand option allows the claimant to sit or stand at will without specifying a frequency for changing positions.

Grubbs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-13

At step four, the ALJ must identify the claimant’s functional limitations or restrictions, and assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis, including a required narrative discussion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945; Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (Jul. 2, 1996). ... This term refers to the ability to sit or stand at the employee’s option, rather than on any set schedule. ... For all of these reasons, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s RFC assessment as to Plaintiff’s need for a sit/stand option.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to address work-related physical functions, including sitting, standing, and lifting; an ALJ who does not rely on a medical opinion must assess those functions individually.

Will v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-12(b)

Where an ALJ does not rely on “a medical opinion for his RFC determination, the ALJ is further required to provide a function-by-function analysis of [the claimant’s] work-related capacity”. Ford v. Colvin, 2013 WL 4718615, *8 (W.D.N.Y. 2013). These functions include, inter alia, sitting, standing, and lifting. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(b).

Residual functional capacity measures the maximum work a claimant can perform despite her limitations; a hand-use limit must be supported by the evidence as a whole.

Cummings v. Saul · filed 2019-09-12(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the maximum work that she can perform despite any limitations. ... Viewing the evidence as a whole, the ALJ’s decision to limit Plaintiff to frequent use of her hands is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) permits an ALJ to omit a cane limitation from a claimant’s residual functional capacity when the record does not establish a need for the cane.

Weakley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-05(a)

Finally, the evidence of record does not support a finding of Weakley’s need to use an assistive device when standing or walking. ... Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision to not include a limitation regarding an assistive device in his RFC determination to be supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ was not required to obtain the testimony of a vocational expert regarding the same.

Section 404.1545(b)–(d) identifies the functions used to evaluate a claimant’s limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Oltmanns v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2003-03-28(b)-(d)

The ALJ did not err in evaluating Oltmanns’ residual functioning capacity. Her opinion makes clear that she properly evaluated Oltmanns’ limitations based on the functions described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b)-(d).

Section 404.1545(b) requires consideration of physical abilities, including walking, standing, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, reaching, and handling, when determining residual functional capacity.

Croom v. Harris · filed 1981-04-14(b)

In determining this plaintiff’s residual functional capacity the Court must consider plaintiff’s ability to do physical activities such as walking, standing, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, reaching, handling and other physical functions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires an assessment of a claimant’s ability to perform basic physical activities when determining residual functional capacity.

Milazzo v. Schweiker · filed 1981-12-30(b)

More important, the administrative proceedings below omit the specific assessments required under the regulations, viz.: (1) the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work; and (2) the claimant’s present ability (evaluated on the basis of medical evidence) to do either that work or the basic physical activities — walking, standing, lifting, etc. — specified by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), supra.

Section 404.1545 requires assessment of physical abilities, mental impairments, and other impairments when determining residual functional capacity; impairments undisputedly absent need no further consideration.

Scalzo v. Heckler · filed 1987-01-28

This is done by assessing a claimant’s physical abilities, mental impairments and “other impairments” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. Since it is undisputed that the claimant does not possess any mental impairment or “other impairment,” such as epilepsy or impairment of the senses, these two criteria need not be considered any further with respect to making a determination in the present case.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the work-related physical or mental activities a person can perform despite limitations caused by an impairment.

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

Residual functional capacity is one’s capacity to perform work-related physical or mental activities in spite of functional limitations resulting from such individual’s impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; Cohen v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 964 F.2d 524, 530 (6th Cir.1992).

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to evaluate a claimant’s physical functions when determining capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis.

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

Where those limitations are physical, the Commissioner “considers [the claimant’s] ability to do various physical activities” walking, standing, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, reaching, handling and “evaluates other physical functions” to determine the claimant’s “residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) (1991). ... Considering the record as a whole, including the evidence the ALJ erroneously discredited, we conclude that the ALJ’s finding that Smolen could have performed sedentary work is not supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity describes what a person can still do despite physical and mental impairments, including any limits on work activities.

Holler v. Chater, Commissioner · filed 1996-05-09(a)

An individual's residual functional capacity is what that person can still do despite physical and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (1995). What the ALJ actually found was that Holler could perform the requirements of light work with the limitations of no squatting or repeated bending and no prolonged walking or sitting for more than an hour at a time.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the ALJ to assess the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations before determining the work the claimant can perform on a regular and continuing basis.

Winfrey v. Chater · filed 1996-08-07(b)

In determining a claimant’s physical abilities, the ALJ should “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite his limitations and includes physical abilities and mental and other impairments in the assessment.

Anderson v. Callahan · filed 1997-10-09

Residual functional capacity is defined as what a claimant can do despite his limitations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404,1545(a), and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental and other impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), (c), (d).

Section 404.1545(b) requires consideration of a claimant’s ability to perform physical activities, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, reaching, handling, stooping, and crouching.

Sobolewski v. Apfel · filed 1997-11-19(b)

In determining a claimant’s capacity to perform work-related physical activities, the claimant’s ability to sit, stand, walk, lift, carry, push, and pull must be considered, as well as her ability to reach, handle, stoop, or crouch. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires medical evidence showing a claimant’s ability to perform each physical element of residual functional capacity.

Kendall v. Apfel · filed 1998-08-06(b)

There has been no medical evidence offered to establish plaintiffs ability to sit, stand, walk, lift, carry, push, pull, reach, handle, stoop or crouch as is required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... The Commissioner must demonstrate through medical evidence whether and to what extent plaintiff is capable of performing each of the RFC elements and come to a conclusion as to her end result RFC.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ to assess the physical work functions affected by a claimant’s impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Norris v. Apfel · filed 2000-04-28(b)

In addition, the ALJ was required to assess the “physical demands of work activity, such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping or crouching).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b). In this regard, the ALJ made findings only on claimant’s ability to walk, sit, lift, and carry, even though claimant’s back/hip/leg/arm impairments would also impact other functions. Because the ALJ failed to make all of the physical functional findings implicated by the impairments she accepted as true, it is impossible to match claimant’s RFC with all of the physical functional demands of his past jobs.

Section 404.1545(b) calls for consideration of a claimant’s ability to lift, sit, stand, walk, push, and pull when assessing residual functional capacity.

Clifford v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2000-09-14(b)

The ALJ considers the claimant’s ability to lift weight, sit — stand, walk, push — pull, etc., in reaching this determination.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to address the claimant’s ability to sit, stand, and walk, as well as manipulative and postural functions.

Armer v. Apfel · filed 2000-06-09(b)

RFC is a “function-by-function assessment,” Social Security Ruling 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at *2, which includes claimant’s ability to sit, stand, and walk, and his manipulative and postural functions, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires specific findings about a claimant’s ability to stand and walk as part of the residual functional capacity determination.

Bibbs v. Apfel · filed 2001-01-19(b)

Moreover, the ALJ failed to make specific findings about claimant’s ability to stand and walk, even though those findings are a necessary part of the RFC determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b); Social Security Ruling 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at *2.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s physical limitations when determining residual functional capacity for regular and continuing work.

Goodwin v. Halter · filed 2001-04-06(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... The ALJ’s opinion clearly indicates that he did, in fact, consider whether Plaintiff was limited in lifting, sitting, standing, walking, carrying, pushing, pulling or other' physical functions.

An assessment of physical residual functional capacity must explain how the claimant’s activities support the ability to meet a job’s physical demands.

Dominguese v. Massanari · filed 2001-10-22(b)

The ALJ did not explain to which of her rather limited household activities he referred and how they showed that plaintiff could do the lifting, carrying, walking, standing, pushing or pulling that even a limited range of light work requires.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s physical limitations when determining capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis.

Freeman v. Halter · filed 2001-04-10(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires an assessment of a claimant’s physical limitations to determine what work the claimant can perform on a regular and continuing basis.

Pittman v. Massanari · filed 2001-04-11(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... The ALJ’s opinion clearly indicates that he did, in fact, consider whether Plaintiff was limited in lifting, sitting, standing, walking, carrying, pushing, pulling or other physical functions.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to account for physical limitations, including postural limits that may reduce the work a claimant can perform.

Boyd v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-26(b)

To so hold require ignoring the plain language of a Social Security Ruling: The RFC assessment must first identify the individual's functional limitations or restrictions and assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis, including the functions in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945. Only after that may RFC be expressed in terms of the exertional levels of work, sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b) (a limited ability to perform certain physical demands of work activity, including postural functions, such as stooping or crouching, may reduce an individual's ability to do past work and other work.).

An RFC assessment may implicitly find no limitation in sitting, standing, or walking when the decision shows the ALJ considered those functions.

Depover v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2003-11-14(b)

He made explicit findings and, although we would have preferred that he had made specific findings as to sitting, standing, and walking, we do not believe that he overlooked those functions. ... Having carefully reviewed the record, we believe that the ALJ implicitly found that Mr. Depover was not limited in these functions, and in this instance we do not see any reason to remand to make the findings explicit.

An RFC assessment may implicitly find no limitation in sitting, standing, and walking when the ALJ considered those functions and expressly identified the functions that were limited.

Depover v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2003-11-14(b)

He made explicit findings and, although we would have preferred that he had made specific findings as to sitting, standing, and walking, we do not believe that he overlooked those functions. We think instead that the record reflects that the ALJ implicitly found that Mr. Depover was not limited in these areas: We note initially that all of the functions that the ALJ specifically addressed in the RFC were those in which he found a limitation, thus giving us some reason to believe that those functions that he omitted were those that were not limited.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ to assess specific physical work functions when determining residual functional capacity.

Baker v. Barnhart · filed 2003-12-10(b)

Thus, the ALJ must assess the “physical demands of work activity, such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping or crouching).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ to consider how limits on physical activities such as lifting, reaching, and stooping affect a claimant’s ability to perform past or other work.

Butler, Joan S. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2004-01-13(b)

In so concluding, the ALJ was required to consider the nature and extent of any limit on her ability to ‘‘perform certain physical demands of work activity,’’ such as lifting, reaching or stooping, that affect her ability to perform past relevant or other work. Id. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b).

Section 404.1545 requires an assessment of physical work abilities function by function before an RFC is expressed as sedentary work.

Matejka v. Barnhart · filed 2005-09-16(b)

Since the ALJ failed to make a function-by-function analysis of plaintiffs RFC, his determination that she had the RFC for sedentary work is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires a function-by-function assessment of a claimant’s physical abilities when determining residual functional capacity.

Bornette v. Barnhart · filed 2006-11-28(b)

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States Magistrate Judge are correct, and the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A Final Judgment will be entered separately, remanding this action to the Commissioner to consider all impairments; make a function-by-function assessment of plaintiffs residual functional capacity as required by Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) and Social Security Ruling 96-8p; and reconsider plaintiffs application in light of any additional findings.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s ability to perform physical work activities, including standing and walking, based on substantial evidence.

Dewey v. Barnhart · filed 2006-04-27(b)

To determine a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must therefore assess the claimant’s ability to perform the “physical demands of work activity, such as sitting, standing, walking, [and] lifting.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b). ... While the ALJ properly took into account plaintiff’s statements regarding his daily activities in determining plaintiff’s RFC, the statements, standing alone, do not provide substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff can stand and walk for a total of four hours each work day.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate a claimant’s ability to perform physical functions, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, and carrying.

Hogan v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-19(b)

In making his RFC assessment, the ALJ also failed to provide a function-by-function assessment of plaintiffs ability to perform all of the exertional requirements of sedentary work. The ALJ did not specifically determine plaintiffs ability to sit, stand, walk, lift and carry. This was error.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s work-related abilities function by function before expressing residual functional capacity as an exertional level.

McEaney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-03-10(b), (c), (d)

“The RFC assessment must first identify the individual’s functional limitations or restrictions and assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis, including the functions in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945. Only after that may RFC be expressed in terms of the exertional levels of work, sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy.” ... The ALJ made the eonclusory finding that plaintiff could perform light work, without first providing a function-by-function assessment of plaintiffs capacities. This failure to provide a function-by-function assessment was in contravention of SSR 96-8p as well as the applicable regulations.

Section 404.1545(b) requires detailed findings about the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations and capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis.

Cysewski v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-26(b)

Moreover, the ALJ erred by failing to make detailed findings regarding the “nature and extent of [Cy-sewski’s] physical limitations and then de-termin[ing] [her] residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(b); SSR 96-8p (enumerating the various exertional and nonexertional capacities and setting forth narrative discussion requirements for the ALJ).

Residual functional capacity must account for a claimant’s ability to perform physical work demands, including handling and other manipulative functions.

Griffis v. Astrue · filed 2008-09-26(b)

The ability to meet the physical demands of work activity, including manipulative or postural functions such as reaching, handling, stooping or crouching is considered in determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). An inability to perform any of the required work demands for an identified job would reduce a claimant’s ability to do past work and other work.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to discuss each of the 54 work functions when assessing residual functional capacity; the ALJ may rely on medical and other record evidence.

Stenberg v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2008-12-16

Contrary to Claimant’s argument, an ALJ is not required to discuss a claimant’s limitations with respect to each of the 54 work functions, but may rely on medical and other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545 requires an assessment of a claimant’s work-related abilities; a function-by-function assessment is sufficient when it addresses every function for which the record shows a limitation.

Hartline v. Barnhart · filed 2009-03-31

The Court finds that the ALJ performed a sufficient function-by-function assessment of all functions for which the record included evidence of limitations.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to discuss each physical function when the record shows no limitation on those functions.

Hicks v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-16

In this case, there is no evidence in the record indicating that Plaintiff had any limitation or restriction on her physical capabilities — a point Plaintiff does not dispute. Given the absence of any indication that Plaintiffs ability to perform these tasks was somehow limited, the ALJ was not required to specifically address each of these abilities in his opinion.

An RFC assessment need not discuss each physical ability individually when the record contains no evidence that the claimant is limited in that ability.

Hicks v. Barnhart · filed 2010-06-16(b)

Given the absence of any indication that Plaintiff’s ability to perform these tasks was somehow limited, the ALJ was not required to specifically address each of these abilities in his opinion.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to account for a claimant’s need to use a cane if the evidence establishes that need.

Cruz v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-27(a)

On remand, the ALJ must analyze whether Mr. Cruz requires a cane to ambulate and, if so, must include that requirement in his residual functional capacity and hypothetical question to the VE.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to account for manipulative limitations that may affect a claimant’s ability to do past work.

Kilinski Ex Rel. Kilinski v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-22(b)

We agree that the ALJ erred in failing to assess Ms. Kilinski’s manipulative functioning in light of the objective medical evidence showing arthritis in the left thumb, Ms. Kilinski’s testimony that she could work at a keyboard only one hour a day, and the VE’s testimony that her past jobs, except the job as trainer, required extensive keyboarding. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(b) (including manipulative ability in types of physical demands that may reduce a claimant’s ability to do past work). On remand, the ALJ should include in his RFC assessment Ms. Kilinski’s manipulative functioning.

Residual functional capacity assesses what a claimant can physically do to determine the types of work the claimant can perform.

Adams v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-20(a)(1)

The RFC assessment is a consideration of the things a claimant can physically accomplish in order to determine what types of work can be performed.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess exertional abilities, including standing and carrying, based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-12-26(a)(3)

In arriving at an RFC determination, an ALJ must assess a claimant's exertional capabilities - which includes the ability to stand and carry - based on "all of the relevant medical and other evidence," 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to consider the tasks a claimant can perform and the resulting level of work.

Perry v. Colvin · filed 2013-05-14(a)(1)

The residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment is a consideration of the tasks the claimant can physically accomplish in order to determine the level of work that can be performed. ... It’s unclear from the ALJ’s decision how she got from one- or two-step tasks, to a capacity for jobs that, under the DOT, require more.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to address relevant physical functions and explain its conclusions when conflicting evidence prevents meaningful review.

Box v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-14(b)

Similarly, while the Court can assume that the ALJ rejected Dr. Bena-tar’s opinions concerning absences, unscheduled breaks and lifting limitations, without elaboration by the ALJ, the Court is unable to determine the reasons for his RFC assessment. As such, on remand, the ALJ should fully explain the reasons for his RFC assessment, which should include a discussion as to all relevant functions.

An RFC assessment must properly consider a medical opinion’s sit/stand limitation before vocational testimony based on that assessment can support a finding that the claimant can work.

Briand v. SSA · filed 2015-06-30(a)

Here, notwithstanding the general incompatibility between light work and a sit/stand option, the ALJ relied upon VE testimony elicited in response to a hypothetical that omitted the sit/stand limitation prescribed in the only medical opinion in the record. Accordingly, this case must be remanded for: (1) a proper consideration of Dr. Fairley’s opinion regarding Briand’s need for a sit/stand option; and (2) VE testimony based upon a proper RFC assessment.

An RFC assessment lacks substantial evidence when it omits a medically supported limitation on the claimant’s ability to walk with a cane.

Dubord v. SSA · filed 2016-11-01(a)(1)

To sum up, the ALJ’s decision not to include a limitation in Dubord’s RFC reflecting her need to use a cane to ambulate, a limitation endorsed by Drs. Rosenthall and Doane, is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s ability to perform physical work activities before finding that the claimant can perform light work.

Dowell v. Colvin · filed 2017-01-11(b)

Accordingly, because the ALJ failed to make the necessary finding on Plaintiff’s ability to perform physical demands of work activity listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) before deciding that Plaintiff was capable of performing “light” work, his ultimate conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to account for a claimant’s functional limitations, including limitations in using her hands.

Moore v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-07-12(a)(1)

However, the ALJ did not specifically address Plaintiff’s alleged hand limitations and the Court believes remand is necessary for the ALJ to more fully and fairly develop the record regarding Plaintiff’s physical RFC.

An RFC assessment must account for a claimant’s medically documented need to use a cane.

Neitzel v. Colvin · filed 2018-07-23

Despite this evidence, the ALJ erroneously excluded cane use from his RFC on the ground that it was not prescribed.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must address evidence that a claimant needs a cane or walker and explain why its use is excluded.

Tovar, Jr. v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-20

Despite this evidence, the ALJ excluded the use of an assistive device from her RFC. ... Like Dean, we too find that this was an error that requires remand.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; assessing it requires examining how a needed cane affects the claimant’s ability to work.

Tolbert v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-21(a)(1)

A claimant's RFC is the maximum work that she can perform despite any limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... This is problematic because Plaintiff's need for a cane directly relates to her ability to perform light work. On remand, the ALJ should thoroughly examine Plaintiff's need for a cane and how it will affect her ability to perform other work so that the VE may properly determine whether jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform.

An RFC assessment can account for a claimant’s use of assistive devices through a sedentary-work limitation when supported by medical evidence.

Edwards v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-22(a)(1)

In his report, Dr. Erickson acknowledged Edwards’s use of assistive devices and stated the such use would not affect Edwards’s ability to perform sedentary work. AR 100. Thus, the ALJ’s RFC determination, which is limited to sedentary work, included Edwards’s use of assistive devices.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s physical limitations before determining residual functional capacity for regular and continuing work activity.

Pitts v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-26(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... The ALJ’s RFC determination here is supported by substantial evidence including Plaintiff’s testimony, medical records and treatment history.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an assessment of physical limitations when determining residual functional capacity; an explicit function-by-function analysis is unnecessary for irrelevant or uncontested functions.

Morrison v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-25(b)

This explicit function-by-function analysis is not necessary when functions are irrelevant or uncontested.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s ability to meet work demands when assessing residual functional capacity.

Lemon v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-28(a)(4)

As required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, the ALJ considered and addressed Plaintiff’s ability to meet the demands of medium-level work.

An RFC assessment must consider functional limitations caused by obesity, but speculation without supporting evidence does not establish additional limitations.

Brumbaugh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-04

The ALJ should consider whether the obesity causes any functional limitations and explain the conclusion in the RFC. ... Such speculation cannot stand in place of facts, and as such, the ALJ properly found that she could sustain light work.

A claimant bears the burden of providing evidence showing how much her impairments limit her residual functional capacity.

Mettler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-11(a)(3)

Plaintiff bore the burden of providing evidence establishing the degree to which her impairments limit her RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

An RFC assessment must account for conflicting evidence about a claimant’s ability to sit; an unexplained sitting capacity requires remand when it prevents meaningful review.

Young v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-28(a)(3)

Because the ALJ’s finding with respect to Plaintiff’s ability to sit cannot be determined based on a reading of the written decision, remand is necessary.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s physical limitations before determining residual functional capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis.

Bell v. Saul · filed 2020-06-02(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to consider manipulative functions such as reaching and handling when evaluating physical capacity.

Hadley v. Saul · filed 2020-07-20(b)

Included under the umbrella of physical activities are other physical functions, such as manipulative functions like reaching and handling, etc. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 1545(b). ... The ALJ ignored all of this relevant medical and testimonial evidence (see Tr. 36-43) and, as a result, this Court cannot find that the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff can perform a full range of sedentary work is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to address evidence of anxiety that may limit a claimant’s ability to work.

Fugate v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-21

The ALJ did not adequately address the anxiety testified to by both Mr. Fugate and Mr. Glick when determining the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider the claimant's physical and mental abilities, pain, and other limitations that may interfere with sustained work.

MacDonald v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-28(a)

“In making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ must consider a claimant's physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomology, including pain and other limitations which could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis.” Pardee, 631 F. Supp. 2d at 210 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)).

Section 404.1545(b) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s physical limitations and ability to sustain work activity when determining residual functional capacity.

Dokes v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-26(b)

In analyzing a claimant’s abilities, the ALJ must first assess the nature and extent of the claimant’s physical limitations and then determine the claimant’s RFC for work activity on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s physical limitations before determining residual functional capacity for regular and continuing work.

Wilson v. Saul · filed 2020-09-08(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s physical limitations when determining residual functional capacity, but the ALJ need not expressly address every possible functional limitation.

Abdi v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(b)

The Social Security regulations provide that in considering a claimant’s physical abilities as part of the RFC, the ALJ must “first assess the nature and extent of [his] physical limitations and then determine [his] residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... However, despite SSR 96-8p’s language regarding the function-by-function assessment, courts have consistently held that an ALJ is not required to make explicit findings with respect to every possible functional limitation when explaining an RFC decision.

An RFC assessment must account for whether a neck impairment warrants restrictions on both arms when the evidence does not limit the restriction to one arm.

Alberry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-07

The ALJ did not explain why the Plaintiff’s neck impairment did not warrant a bilateral restriction.

Section 404.1545(b) directs the ALJ to consider evidence of a claimant’s physical abilities, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Hankins v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-19(b)

In determining physical limitations, the ALJ considers evidence of the claimant’s abilities to sit, stand, walk, lift, carry, push, pull, and perform other physical functions. Id. § 404.1545(b). ... Substantial record evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Hankins could, on a sustained basis, perform sedentary work.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to address evidence of a claimant’s sitting limitations by explaining why they are discounted or incorporating them into the RFC.

Pflughoeft v. Saul · filed 2020-11-12(a)(1)

The AC failed to adequately discuss the evidence that Pflughoeft was significantly limited in her ability to sit for prolonged periods and either explain why her limitation was not as severe as alleged or incorporate the limitation in its RFC finding. Consequently, remand is required.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations before determining residual functional capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis.

Oates v. Saul · filed 2021-02-01(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires the ALJ to consider evidence of a claimant’s physical abilities when assessing residual functional capacity.

Aleman v. Saul · filed 2021-03-15(b)

Because the record shows Aleman has loss of sensation in three left fingers and atrophy, further development of the record is necessary to consider the effects Aleman’s cervical spine disorder has on his ability to reach, handle, finger, feel, and lift with his left upper extremity.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; an assessment may combine light-level lifting with a two-hour standing and walking limit.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(a)

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite existing limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 2 § 200.00(c). ... Nothing in the RFC indicates that the two-hour limitation is anything but an additional restriction on plaintiff’s ability to do light work, consistent with plaintiff’s lower assessment of the ability to stand and walk.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC determination to describe the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations and capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.

Van Dyne v. Saul · filed 2021-03-31(b)

With respect to a claimant’s physical abilities, an RFC determination indicates the “nature and extent” of a claimant’s physical limitations and capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.

The Commissioner must assess a claimant’s physical limitations before determining residual functional capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis.

Harris v. Saul · filed 2021-06-04(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

An RFC assessment may exclude a claimed need to elevate the legs when the record supports rejecting that limitation.

POULIN v. SAUL · filed 2021-06-07

There is no indication that Linda P.'s orthopedist assessed any long-term need for her to use ice and elevation to manage knee swelling. ... Accordingly, the ALJ's relevant finding—concerning Linda P.'s alleged need to elevate her legs—is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s ability to sit, stand, walk, lift, carry, push, and pull when determining residual functional capacity.

Reyes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-20(b)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must assess a claimant’s exertional capacities, addressing her ability to sit, stand, walk, lift, carry, push, and pull.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC limit of frequent handling when other evidence adequately supports it, even if the ALJ errs in assessing whether medical opinions conflict.

Green v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-29

Because other evidence the ALJ cited adequately supports her handling conclusion, the error is harmless.

An RFC assessment must address the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations, including the ability to perform work-related physical functions.

Turtle v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-22(b)

This includes a discussion of the “nature and extent of” a claimant’s physical limitations including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping, or crouching).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b). ... But as discussed above, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that the claimant can perform a limited range of light work.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to discuss the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations; an ALJ fulfills that duty by discussing the evidence and explaining the RFC.

Hanson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-22(b)

This includes a discussion of the “nature and extent of” a claimant’s physical limitations including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping, or crouching).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b). ... Here, the ALJ has fulfilled her duty. ... Contrary to claimant’s arguments, however, the ALJ discussed all the evidence in the record and her reasons for reaching the RFC.

The Commissioner must assess the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations before determining residual functional capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis.

Paciello v. Saul · filed 2021-10-27(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s physical limitations before determining residual functional capacity for regular and continuing work.

Duffy v. Saul · filed 2021-11-02(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... The ALJ’s RFC determination here is supported by substantial evidence including Plaintiff’s testimony, medical records and treatment history.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to evaluate the claimant’s exertional abilities, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling.

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-08(b)

To properly ascertain a claimant's RFC, an ALJ must assess the claimant's exertional capabilities, addressing his or her ability to sit, stand, walk, lift, carry, push, and pull. ... Here, the ALJ's "light work" RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence.

A claimant’s testimony about sitting, standing, and pain relief can support specific sit/stand limits in a residual functional capacity assessment.

Hogden v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-05(a)(1)

Going beyond Hogden’s arguments, the court notes that Hogden’s hearing testimony supports a sit/stand option. She testified that she is limited to driving an hour at a time because she cannot sit for any longer. (Tr. 43.) She testified that she cannot work standing up (Tr. 41) but, if she has to, she can stand for about 10 minutes at a time (Tr. 58) and she relieves the pain from sitting by standing for a short time (Tr. 43-44). This evidence supports the specific sit/stand limitations and RFC that the ALJ found.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations before determining residual functional capacity for regular and continuing work.

Dellinger v. Saul · filed 2022-01-18(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of physical, mental, and other work-related abilities when assessing residual functional capacity; considering a prior medical finding that assesses physical functions can satisfy the physical-abilities inquiry.

Griffin v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-04(b)-(d)

Subsections (b), (c), and (d) require consideration of an individual’s physical, mental, and other work-related abilities. ... However, as the Commissioner points out, the ALJ’s reference to a prior administrative medical finding completed by agency physician Dr. Kossman, which contained a function-by-function assessment of Plaintiff’s physical abilities, shows that the ALJ considered all of the work-related abilities listed in SSR 96-8p.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s physical limitations before determining residual functional capacity for regular and continuing work.

Travis v. Saul · filed 2022-03-01(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to discuss the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, and manipulative or postural functions.

Weller v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-24(b)

This includes a discussion of the “nature and extent of” a claimant’s physical limitations including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping, or crouching).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b). ... Here, the ALJ has fulfilled his duty.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s physical limitations before determining residual functional capacity for regular and continuing work activity.

Beckham v. Saul · filed 2022-05-06(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(b) treats handling as a manipulative physical function in a residual functional capacity assessment.

Fonseca v. Saul · filed 2022-05-20(b)

The Social Security Administration considers handling restrictions as a type of manipulation restriction. ... Handling is a type of manipulation, so by restricting manipulation, the ALJ seemingly (or at least could have) restricted handling.

Section 404.1545(b) calls for evaluating a claimant’s ability to perform physical work functions when assessing residual functional capacity.

Plemmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-31(b)

In contrast, the ALJ’s decision shows that she thoroughly evaluated Plaintiff’s ability to perform the functions outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.1545(b). The ALJ properly considered the opinion evidence, among other evidence, in her evaluation of Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to address how much a claimant can lift and carry.

Treadwell v. Saul · filed 2022-09-06(b)

But the ALJ was required to craft an RFC that included how much Plaintiff could lift and carry, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), and thus reasonably assessed this evidence.

An ALJ’s assessment of physical residual functional capacity must have proper medical support for the claimant’s functional limitations.

Buonsignore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-09(b)

Dr. Pollack’s opinion is the only evidence in the record as to Plaintiff’s physical functional limitations, and it directly contradicts the ALJ’s RFC determination. By failing to support the RFC determination with proper medical evidence, the ALJ committed legal error, warranting remand.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite impairments; the assessed capacity must be supported by evidence.

Mathews v. Saul · filed 2022-09-14

An ALJ cannot ascribe an RFC to a claimant that is unsupported by the medical evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the agency to assess the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations when determining capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis.

Gourley v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-09-28(b)

Applicable regulations provide the following guidance for the agency when assessing a claimant’s RFC: When we assess your physical abilities, we first assess the nature and extent of your physical limitations and then determine your residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.

A residual functional capacity assessment must address the claimant’s ability to reach and the reaching demands of proposed occupations.

Abernathy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-19

Moreover, the ALJ shall assess and provide a narrative discussion about plaintiff's functional capacity to perform reaching tasks generally and as an exertional demand required by the proposed representative occupations.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s physical limitations when determining residual functional capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis.

Winstead v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-08(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... The ALJ clearly considered the functional limitations resulting from Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments.

Section 404.1545(b) does not require an RFC assessment to include alleged physical limitations unsupported by the medical record.

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-28(b)

But Gonzalez has not identified any evidence in the medical record to support the existence of such difficulties. ... Thus, the ALJ did not err in omitting these limitations from Gonzalez’s RFC determination, which was supported by substantial evidence.

A residual functional capacity assessment can address reaching in all directions through a restriction on conveyor-belt work.

(SS) Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-03(a)

Thus, the ALJ’s inclusion of a conveyor-belt limitation demonstrates consideration of Plaintiff’s ability to reach in all directions; the ALJ therefore sufficiently addresses this limitation in the RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to discuss the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, and postural functions.

Elmore v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-06(b)

This includes a discussion of the “nature and extent of” a claimant’s physical limitations including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping, or crouching).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b). ... Here, the ALJ has fulfilled his duty.

An ALJ may omit limitations from a medical opinion when the ALJ adequately explains the difference between that opinion and the residual functional capacity assessment.

Bryan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-14

In sum, the ALJ was not categorically required to incorporate every limitation proposed by “other source” medical opinion evidence, even though he placed “great weight” in portions of those opinions. Where, as here, an ALJ offers a proper explanation for the discrepancy between the medical opinion evidence and the RFC, there is no error. Accordingly, the RFC was not incomplete, and the VE testimony elicited based on that RFC properly supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.

An RFC assessment must evaluate relevant physical functions, including sitting, and explain how the evidence supports the assessed capacity.

Ralston v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-31(b)

As such, the lack of relevant analysis in the ALJ’s decision leaves me unable to determine whether substantial evidence supports the finding that Plaintiff has the RFC to perform sedentary work.

Section 404.1545 permits a light-work RFC despite moderate limitations in prolonged sitting, standing, and walking when the record supports that assessment.

Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-03

To the extent plaintiff alleges that the light work RFC determination is necessarily inconsistent with Dr. Benivegna’s opinion that plaintiff had moderate limitations regarding prolonged standing, sitting, and walking, I disagree and conclude that the ALJ’s determination was supported by the record.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate physical functions that may affect a claimant’s ability to work.

Hooper v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-25(b)

Pursuant to Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, an ALJ’s RFC assessment must include an evaluation of the claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), which include “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions” that may reduce [a claimant’s] “ability to do past work and other work.”

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for supported limits on how long a claimant can sit when determining whether the claimant can perform past work.

Murray-Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-15(a)(1)

The RFC assessment “is the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Although the ALJ correctly observed that the term “too long” is not quantified and could be vague, the ALJ did not provide adequate and supported reasons for discounting the entirety of Ms. High’s direction in this regard.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for credited limitations in a claimant’s ability to use her hands.

Wilcox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-19

Additionally, the ALJ’s RFC fails to incorporate or account for all the moderate limitations assessed by Dr. DePra – even though the ALJ purported to credit them – specifically, Dr. DePra’s finding that plaintiff had moderate limitations in using her hands.

An ALJ must assess and explain a claimant’s capacity to perform relevant physical functions when determining residual functional capacity; inadequate findings that frustrate review warrant remand.

Acevedo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-20(b)

Because the ALJ failed to adequately assess and explain Acevedo’s capacity to perform relevant functions, remand is warranted “for further findings or a clearer explanation for the decision.”

An ALJ may omit a leg-elevation limitation from the RFC when the explanation shows the need was considered and substantial evidence supports its omission.

Campbell v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-25(a)(3)

The ALJ’s discussion is sufficient for the court to trace the ALJ’s reasoning in not including a limitation to elevating Claimant’s legs in the RFC, and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment must evaluate the claimant’s ability to perform physical functions, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling.

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-05(b)

Pursuant to Social Security Ruling 96-8p, an ALJ’s RFC assessment must include an evaluation of the claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions . . . [that] may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do past work and other work.”

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate physical functions, including lifting.

Capan v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-06(b)

Pursuant to Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, an ALJ’s RFC assessment must include an evaluation of the claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b) and 416.945(b), which include “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions” that may reduce a claimant’s ability to do past work and other work. ... Here, the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s ability to lift was not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to account for physical limitations that affect a claimant’s ability to work, including limitations associated with tremors and treatment.

Rittenhouse v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-05(b)

Accordingly, because the ALJ failed to account for any functional limitations associated with Plaintiff’s tremors and Fabry disease-related infusion treatments in determining Plaintiff’s RFC, the Court remands the case for further consideration.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate a claimant’s ability to perform physical work functions, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, and carrying.

Adesope v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-01(b)

Pursuant to SSR 96-8P, an RFC assessment must include an evaluation of a claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions” that “may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do . . . work.”

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate physical functions, including documented effects of obesity on those functions.

Kirby v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-04-04(b)

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s first argument unpersuasive and concludes that the ALJ’s decision, adopted by the Appeals Council, sufficiently considered Plaintiff’s obesity in determining Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires assessment of relevant physical work abilities when determining residual functional capacity; remand may be necessary when the ALJ leaves standing and walking unassessed despite contrary evidence.

Delgado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-03(b)

Here, the ALJ failed to assess Plaintiff’s capacity to perform relevant functions, including her ability to engage in prolonged standing and walking, despite contrary evidence in the record (including assessments from a treating physician and two medical experts), and with inadequacies in his analysis, as outlined above, that frustrate meaningful review. A remand, therefore, is necessary.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate a claimant’s ability to perform physical work functions, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling.

Colvin v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2025-03-31(b)

An RFC assessment must include an evaluation of a claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b) and 416.945(b), including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions” that “may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do . . . work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b); see Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996). ... The ALJ offered a logical explanation of how this evidence, along with Plaintiff’s testimony, and the opinions of medical professionals, led to the conclusion that Plaintiff can perform a full range of light work.

Section 404.1545(b) requires assessment of a claimant’s physical work abilities when determining residual functional capacity; failure to assess key functions can warrant remand when it frustrates meaningful review.

Pichardo v. O'Malley · filed 2025-06-06(b)

Here, the ALJ failed to explicitly assess Plaintiff’s capacity to perform key functions of light work, including his ability to engage in prolonged walking and standing, which frustrates meaningful review.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment of a claimant’s physical abilities, with an explanation connecting the evidence to the work the claimant can perform.

McCormick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-19(b)

Notably, the ALJ failed to conduct a function-by-function assessment of Plaintiff’s physical abilities and explain how the non-opinion evidence in the record supported his finding that Plaintiff could perform all the physical requirements for medium work, including lifting as much as fifty pounds at a time and frequently lifting up to 25 pounds.

An RFC assessment accounts for obesity when the ALJ includes limitations based on BMI and relies on medical consultants who considered the claimant’s BMI and weight.

Hatfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-19(a)(1)

Thus, by including limitations in the RFC based on the Plaintiff’s BMI and by relying on state agency medical consultants who considered the Plaintiff’s BMI and weight, the ALJ factored the Plaintiff’s obesity into the RFC finding.

An RFC must account for accepted attendance limitations or explain why they do not warrant additional restrictions.

Deleon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-19(a)

However, the Court concludes the ALJ did err in failing to either incorporate into the RFC Plaintiff’s limitations regarding attendance or explain why he chose not to accept those specific limitations.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must explain the level of work the claimant can perform.

Honey v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-09-23(a)(5)

When crafting a claimant’s residual functional capacity and assessing whether a claimant can perform their past work at step four of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must explain which level of work the claimant is currently capable of performing.

Section 404.1545(c) requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s mental abilities for work and explain how the evidence supports the mental limitations in the residual functional capacity.

Coca v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-24(c)

This means the ALJ must consider how the claimant’s impairments affect his physical abilities, mental abilities, and other abilities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b)-(d), 416.945(b)–(d). ... The ALJ failed to adequately tie the mental limitations he included in Plaintiff’s RFC to the evidence of record. The Court remands so the ALJ can remedy this error.

An ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment is supported when the decision thoroughly and reasonably accounts for the claimant’s limitations.

Asztalos v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-25(a)

Overall, the ALJ’s thorough and reasoned opinion supports her formulation of Asztalos’ RFC.

An RFC must account for supported moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace; a restriction to simple instructions may be insufficient.

Rhodes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-25(a)(1)

In sum, the RFC assigned by the ALJ, and the corresponding hypothetical questions posed by the ALJ to the VE, were “incomplete because [they] did not include any restrictions in concentration, persistence, or pace— restrictions that the ALJ acknowledged [Rhodes] to have suffered moderately.” Radosevich v. Berryhill, 759 F. App’x 492, 494 (7th Cir. 2019).

An ALJ assessing a claimant’s ability to sit, stand, and walk must explain how the medical evidence supports any specific intervals for changing positions in the RFC.

Fraser · filed 2026-03-13(b)

Among the functions an ALJ must assess are the abilities to sit, stand, and walk. 20 CFR § 404.1545(b). ... On remand, the ALJ must explain how the medical evidence supports Fraser’s need for position changes at the specific time intervals imposed.

Residual functional capacity accounts for physical work demands, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, and postural functions.

Anzaldua v. Saul · filed 2020-11-30(b)

In this case, only the physical demands of work activities are at issue, and these include “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping, or crouching). . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to account for a service dog in a claimant’s residual functional capacity without evidence that a medical source prescribed or recommended it.

Hewitt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-12(a)(1)

Whether a service dog is medically necessary depends, in turn, on whether “the evidence shows that the service dog was medically prescribed or recommended.” Id. ... Without such evidence, the ALJ was not required to consider the need for a service dog in his RFC assessment.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider substantial evidence that a claimant needs a cane; ignoring that evidence can require remand.

Sigsbee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-14

The ALJ has impermissibly cherry-picked the evidence by concluding that Mr. Sigsbee’s medical records support the omission of a cane in his RFC without considering substantial evidence that points to the contrary.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ considers the claimant’s impairments and symptoms in light of the objective medical evidence and includes cane use only when it is medically required.

Rodgers-Eaches v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-19(a)(2), (a)(3)

In formulating the RFC, the ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s impairments and symptoms and the extent to which they are consistent with the objective medical evidence. ... The ALJ is not required to incorporate use of a cane into the RFC unless the cane is medically required, in which case the cane is considered a limitation on a claimant’s ability to work.

An ALJ may omit cane use from a claimant’s residual functional capacity when substantial evidence supports finding that the claimant does not need a cane.

Griffith v. SSA · filed 2021-07-28(a)(1)

Given such evidence, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff did not require a cane for purposes of the RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations, assessed using all relevant evidence.

(SS) Pieper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-29(a)(1)

The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [his or her] limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.”

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite his limitations.

Bailey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-07-30(a)(1)

An RFC is the most a claimant can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1) and 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as a claimant’s work-related abilities despite her limitations.

Christian v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-04(a)(1)

The RFC determination sets out an individual’s work-related abilities despite his or her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545 allows a residual functional capacity assessment to include a light sensitivity restriction supported by the claimant’s symptoms and treatment records.

Weeces v. Saul · filed 2021-08-05

Based on the above-described information in the record, it was reasonable for the ALJ to include a light sensitivity limitation in his RFC assessment that precludes plaintiff from working in environments with “brighter” lighting due to his claimed “light sensitivity” and the treatment records indicating he had a defect in his right eye.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite physical or mental limitations.

Walkup v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-06(a)(1)

RFC is defined as the most a claimant can still do despite his physical or mental limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

An RFC can accommodate a marked limitation in dealing with stress through restrictions on decisions, workplace changes, task complexity, and contact with others.

Newark, Sr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-09

Specifically, the ALJ limited plaintiff to a low-stress job involving only occasional decision-making and only occasional changes in the work setting, as well as to unskilled, simple, routine, and repetitive tasks. (Tr. 19). He also restricted plaintiff’s required interaction with others by limiting him to no more than occasional contact with supervisors, no more than occasional interaction with coworkers, no team or tandem work, and no contact with the general public in performing work-related duties. (Id.). These limitations are consistent with Zali’s assessment as they adequately accommodate a marked limitation in appropriately dealing with stress.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite the claimant’s limitations.

Miller v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-08-09(a)(1)

An RFC is the most a claimant can do despite his limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity and explain why no mental limitations are needed.

Buckhalter v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-10(a)(2)

While the evidence of mental impairment in this case is minimal, to comply with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2), the ALJ should go beyond a mere mention of plaintiff’s symptom of depression and explain why no mental limits are necessary in Elaine B.’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations.

Sikes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-11(a)

The RFC finding is the Administrative Law Judge’s ultimate determination of what a claimant can still do despite his or her physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 404.1546(c).

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite limitations caused by mental or physical impairments.

Aguirre v. Saul · filed 2021-08-11

A claimant’s RFC is what he or she can do despite the limitations caused by any mental or physical impairments. Toland v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir. 2014); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.