20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider limitations from non-severe impairments and explain how they affect work-related functions.

Basham v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-04(a)(2)

When an ALJ determines a claimant’s RFC, “the adjudicator must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’” SSR 96-8P, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,474, 34,477 (July 2, 1996), 1996 WL 362207; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... The ALJ’s failure to analyze or explain why he omitted Plaintiff’s mild mental limitations from the RFC determination constitutes legal error.

An RFC assessment must consider non-severe impairments, but mild mental limitations need not be included in the RFC when they do not warrant work-related restrictions.

Kirby v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-05(a)(2)

The undersigned finds that the ALJ properly analyzed Plaintiff’s mental impairments at step two using the “paragraph B” criteria and further explained her determination to not include any mental limitations in the RFC finding, thus the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and comports with applicable law.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider both severe and non-severe medically determinable impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Patrick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-12(a)(2)

Under the Regulations, the ALJ considered his medically-determinable conditions at the later steps of the sequential evaluations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2) (ALJ considers both severe and non-severe impairments when formulating the RFC).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the RFC assessment to consider limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere mental impairments, even if the RFC includes no mental restriction.

Arnett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-26(a)(2)

Indeed, while the ALJ need not include any mental limitations in the RFC, the ALJ must still consider these limitations in the RFC assessment. Here, the ALJ did not provide any explanation about Ms. A’s mental limitations when formulating the RFC, so the Court cannot determine whether they were considered as part of the RFC assessment at all.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider non-severe mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Nelson v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-23(a)(2)

We agree it is well settled that, despite a finding of non-severe mental impairments at Step 2, an ALJ must at least consider those impairments when fashioning the RFC.

Section 404.1545(c) allows an ALJ to assess a nonsevere mental impairment at Step Two and incorporate that analysis into the RFC discussion.

Ross v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-29(c)

To summarize, the ALJ conducted the requisite mental impairment RFC analysis at Step Two and then incorporated that analysis into his RFC discussion. This is all that is required. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c).

An ALJ must consider nonsevere mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity and adequately address evidence of their effects.

Gillette v. O'Malley · filed 2025-10-01(a)(2)

Under these guideposts, we conclude the ALJ’s RFC assessment in this particular case was insufficient in that it ignored objective medical evidence of Gillette’s mental impairments and failed to fully and adequately address these impairments in the RFC assessment.

An ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but need not include a functional limitation for every non-severe impairment.

Randall v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-30(a)(2)

While the regulations require the ALJ to consider the effect of all of a claimant’s impairments in formulating the RFC, they do not require her to translate every non-severe impairment into a functional limitation in the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require a functional limitation for every non-severe impairment.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-30(a)(2), (e)

While the regulations require the ALJ to consider the effect of all of a claimant’s impairments in formulating the RFC, they do not require her to translate every non-severe impairment into a functional limitation in the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Lanz · filed 2025-10-14(a)(2)

Here, unlike the ALJ in Hutton, the ALJ did consider Plaintiff’s mild mental limitations in determining his RFC. ... As such, the Court finds substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination, and the decision must be affirmed on this ground.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Owens · filed 2025-10-28(a)(2)

In assessing the RFC, “the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, whether severe or not severe.” ... As such, the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s degenerative disc disease was acceptable.

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of medically determinable impairments in assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments found not severe; substantial evidence may support an assessment without additional limitations for such an impairment.

S.J.B. v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2025-10-22(a)(2)

Although the ALJ found this condition non-severe at step two, the ALJ nevertheless considered it in evaluating her RFC. ... The ALJ found S.J.B.’s urinary incontinence did not require additional work limitations in the RFC. Substantial evidence supports this finding.

An ALJ must consider mild, nonsevere mental limitations when determining residual functional capacity and explain their impact, if any.

LESKO · filed 2025-12-18(a)(2)

If the ALJ determines the medical record supports a medically determinable mental impairment, but finds those mental impairments are not “severe” and instead rates the degree of the claimant’s limitations as “mild,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a; 416.920a; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(d)(1); 416.920a(d)(1), an ALJ is still required to consider all impairments – both severe and non-severe – when formulating the RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(e) requires an ALJ to consider the limiting effects of non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity; an ALJ’s failure to discuss them explicitly at step four does not require reversal when the decision shows they were considered.

Garcia · filed 2025-11-24(e)

It is certainly true that “in determining RFC, an ALJ must ‘consider the limiting effects of all the claimant’s impairment(s), even those that are not severe.’” Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1140 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(e), 416.945(e)). ... Because Plaintiff’s mental impairments were discussed at step two, the ALJ stated that all impairments were considered at step four, and information regarding Plaintiff’s mental limitations was still discussed at step four, reversal is not warranted.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of non-severe impairments in the RFC assessment, but does not require the ALJ to revisit them explicitly at that stage when the ALJ discussed them at step two and stated they were considered.

Radford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-11-25(a)(2)

Although Plaintiff’s point is well taken that the PRT at step 2 is distinct from the RFC analysis, nevertheless Plaintiff cites no controlling authority for the proposition that the ALJ must explicitly revisit non-severe mental impairments at the RFC stage when the ALJ covered them in detail at step 2 and stated they were considered as both severe and non-severe impairments alike at the RFC stage.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider non-severe impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Brewer · filed 2025-12-10(a)(2), (e)

Nevertheless, the ALJ must consider even non-severe impairments when formulating the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider non-severe impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Pugh · filed 2025-12-19(a)(2)

The ALJ did consider both of these impairments plus kidney disease as non-severe impairments while determining Plaintiff’s RFC as she was required to do.

Section 404.1545(e) requires consideration of medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, regardless of whether they are labeled severe.

Smith v. Commissioner · filed 2025-12-17(e)

Once the ALJ proceeds past Step Two, the labeling of an impairment as severe or non-...severe has no legal significance; the medical record as whole is the basis for the determinations at Steps Three and Four.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

SINATRA · filed 2025-12-23(a)(2)

ALJs must consider all relevant evidence when evaluating a claimant’s RFC at step four, Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 41 (3d Cir. 2001), and relevant evidence includes even “impairments that are not ‘severe,’” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)). Therefore, regardless of the severity determination that the ALJ gave Philip’s lumbar radiculopathy and knee osteoarthritis at step two, the ALJ should have still considered those impairments and evaluated the extent to which they impacted his RFC at step four.

An ALJ must consider severe and non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity and explain the determination, even if a non-severe impairment produces no RFC limitation.

Lepson · filed 2026-01-26(a)(2)

In short, the ALJ may not have ultimately been required to include mental limitations in the RFC based solely on a non-severe mental impairment, but he was required to consider all severe and non-severe impairments and properly explain his determination.10 The failure to do so warrants remand.

An RFC assessment must include limitations from medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Wright · filed 2026-02-06(a)(2)

A claimant’s RFC must include limitations for all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... For all the foregoing reasons, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, and specifically the ALJ’s RFC finding.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider all medically determinable impairments, including those found nonsevere at step two.

White · filed 2026-02-23(a)(2)

In making this assessment, the ALJ must consider all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including any non- severe impairments identified by the ALJ at step two of his or her analysis.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Houser · filed 2026-03-11(a)(2)

An ALJ must consider the effects of all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments—including those found severe and those found non-severe—when assessing the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... As such, the court finds that the ALJ’s discussion of this evidence at step two combined with the ALJ’s findings within the RFC determination were sufficient to demonstrate that the ALJ considered Plaintiff's non-severe mental impairments as part of the RFC assessment.

An ALJ must consider nonsevere mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but need not include mental restrictions when the assessment is adequately explained and supported by substantial evidence.

Lopez · filed 2026-03-17(a)(2)

The record shows the ALJ considered Ms. L.’s mental impairments in assessing RFC, and the ALJ adequately explained her finding that Ms. L.’s RFC did not include mental limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity; an impairment found to cause no work restrictions need not be analyzed again in the RFC discussion.

Stumpf · filed 2026-03-18(a)(2)

Because the ALJ found that Plaintiffs physical impairments caused no restrictions or limitations, he was not required to evaluate them again in his RFC discussion.

An RFC assessment must consider non-severe impairments and adequately explain how the evidence supports the resulting assessment.

Bisignano · filed 2026-03-18

When the RFC assessment does not properly consider a claimant’s non-severe impairments in determining the RFC, remand is warranted. ... The record as a whole demonstrates too many conflicts that tend to support Plaintiff’s mental health claims without an adequate explanation in the RFC assessment. As such, meaningful review is frustrated.

An RFC assessment must consider non-severe impairments; remand is warranted when it fails to do so.

Ralston · filed 2026-03-20(a)(2)

When the RFC assessment does not properly consider a claimant’s non-severe impairments in determining the RFC, remand is warranted.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider both severe and non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Francisco · filed 2026-03-23(a)(2)

This is because the determination that an impairment is non-severe does not prevent an ALJ from considering it in his or her assessment of a claimant’s RFC; instead, an ALJ is required to consider both severe and non-severe impairments in assessing a claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require restrictions for every such impairment.

Stayner · filed 2026-03-25(a)(2)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2), an ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing a claimant’s RFC. ... However, the requirement that the ALJ must consider Plaintiffs non-severe impairments in his RFC determination does not require him to include restrictions in his RFC to accommodate those impairments.

An RFC assessment considers all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Tyson v. Colvin · filed 2015-08-19(a)(2), (e)

In assessing the RFC, the ALJ considered all of the medically determinable impairments, including those that are not “severe” as defined in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), (e); 416.945(a)(2), (e).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Lonjose v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-04(a)(2)

Rather, the record shows that in assessing Plaintiff’s RFC he appropriately “consider[ed] the effect of all medically determinable impairments, whether severe or not.” Wells, 727 F.3d at 1069 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2)).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the agency to consider all known medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere ones, at step five; a failure to fully account for an impairment may be harmless if no effect on the disability determination is shown.

Cargill v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-05(a)(2)

It is true that the ALJ did not expound on Cargill’s insomnia at step five after dismissing it as a ... non-severe impairment at step two, even though step five requires the Agency to “consider all of [the claimant’s] medically determinable impairments of which [the Agency is] aware, including [the claimant’s] medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe.’” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). But there was ample evidence in the record that could have provided alternative explanations for Cargill’s daytime drowsiness, including his alcohol use and the side effects of his prescribed medications. Because Cargill’s arguments have failed to clearly advance a theory as to why a more thorough exploration of his insomnia at step five would have affected the ultimate disability determination, we hold that any error in failing to fully account for his insomnia at step five was harmless.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including those that are not severe.

Orienti v. Astrue · filed 2013-08-07(a)(2)

She points out that an ALJ must evaluate all of a claimant’s impairments, even those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). In fact, the ALJ analyzed her alleged knee and ankle pain in ... his step three analysis, where he did not find a medically determinable impairment.

An RFC assessment may omit work-related restrictions for mild, nonsevere mental impairments when the ALJ adequately accounts for those impairments.

BRUMFIELD v. SAUL · filed 2020-08-21

The ALJ properly accounted for Ms. Brumfield’s mild mental limitations in her RFC assessment, and therefore the ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert was sufficient.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to account for limitations caused by both severe and nonsevere impairments.

Damco v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-08(a)(2)

With respect to Plaintiff’s argument regarding the ALJ’s RFC determination, the Court notes that “[an] RFC determination must account for limitations imposed by both severe and nonsevere impairments.” Parker-Grose v. Astrue, 462 F. App'x 16, 18 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2), and § 416.945(a)(2)). Notwithstanding the regulations, in this case the ALJ determined Plaintiff’s RFC without accounting for the limitations that the ALJ found to have been caused by her mental impairment. See Tr. 21. Thus, the ALJ committed legal error.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere ones, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Douglas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-08(a)(2)

Thus, an ALJ’s RFC determination “must account for limitations imposed by both severe and nonsevere impairments.” ... Given this record, the ALJ’s apparent failure to consider whether environmental restrictions were necessary due to plaintiff’s asthma is not harmless error, warranting remand.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider mild, nonsevere mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Kitty Smith v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-13(a)(2)

There also is no discussion in Finding No. 5 of the impact of Plaintiff's nonsevere mental impairments in combination with the limitations resulting from other impairments. The ALJ plainly erred.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but a mild mental limitation need not be included when it causes no work limitation.

Gomez-Alday v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-15(a)(2), (e)

In doing so, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2), (e). ... Further, an RFC assessment or hypothetical question posed to a vocational expert need not include a mild mental limitation where there is no work limitation.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider non-severe mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

ARENA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-03-05(a)

Applying this standard to the present record, the Court finds that the ALJ failed to sufficiently consider and discuss Plaintiff's non-severe mental impairments in making Plaintiffs RFC finding.

An ALJ must consider non-severe impairments along with severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

PEREZ-VEGA v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-05-24(a)(2)

Yet, the Social Security Act also provides that an ALJ must consider non-severe impairments along with severe impairments in assessing a claimant’s RFC. 20 CFR §404.1545(a)(2).

An RFC assessment considers limitations from all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, but need not include a restriction unsupported by the evidence.

Pantella v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-27(a)(2)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ “must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’” ... The ALJ, however, determined that given the lack of severity of mental limitation, the RFC did not need to incorporate mental limitations. ... This finding is supported by substantial evidence even though the record does document diagnosis and treatment for the disorders.

Section 404.1545(e) requires the ALJ to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including those found nonsevere, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Maggard v. SSA · filed 2024-07-31(e)

Even if true, however, this is not grounds for reversal. ... “And once an ALJ finds that a claimant has at least one severe impairment at step two of the disability analysis, the ALJ must then ‘consider the limiting effects of all [the claimant’s] impairment(s), even those that are not severe’ in evaluating the claimant’s ability to work in step four.” Hedges v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 725 F. App'x 394, 395 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e)). Here, the ALJ found that Maggard had some severe impairments.

An ALJ must consider nonsevere mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but may omit mental limitations when the decision is adequately explained and supported by substantial evidence.

Lankford v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-12-11(a)(2)

However, in our view, the ALJ’s decision not to include mental limitations in the RFC was both adequately articulated and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity; supported findings may justify omitting a mental limitation from that assessment.

Brittain v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-17(a)(2)

The Court holds that the ALJ conducted a sufficient mental RFC assessment separate from the non-severity determination made at Step Two and that this assessment was supported by the requisite substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of severe and non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Ludi v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-23(a)(2)

However, because the Court reverses for other reasons, the Court instructs the ALJ on remand to consider and discuss all impairments, severe and non-severe, during the narrative discussion at step four. Wells v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 1061, 1064 (10th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider how a claimant’s symptoms affect work-related functions; headache frequency alone does not establish a functional limitation.

Collins v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-13(a)(3)-(4)

Nowhere does Plaintiff (or any medical professional) discuss what sort of impact, if any, the headaches had on his ability to perform work-related functions.

An ALJ must consider all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity, but need not discuss every piece of evidence.

Gregory v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2026-06-18(a)(3)

To be sure, when defining a claimant’s residual functional capacity, an ALJ is required to consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); Eslinger v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 476 F. App’x 618, 621 (6th Cir. 2012). ... But there is no indication the ALJ disregarded that type of evidence. ... The ALJ did not need to say more.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider medical findings and all other evidence in the record when assessing residual functional capacity.

Crews · filed 2026-04-09(a)(3)

ALJs make these finding based on a consideration of medical source statements, prior administrative medical findings, and all other evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c), 416.929, 416.945(a)(3), 416.946(c).

An ALJ determines residual functional capacity based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Elms · filed 2026-03-27(a)(3)

First, the ALJ determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to be based on the relevant medical and other evidence in the record.

Galloway · filed 2026-03-30(a)(3)

An RFC must be based on the relevant medical and other evidence contained in the record.

An omitted adaptation limitation in a residual functional capacity assessment is harmless when vocational testimony accounting for that limitation shows significant work remains available.

Lemons · filed 2026-03-31(a)

Ultimately, the ALJ's omission of the moderate limitation of adapting to situational changes that "are gradual and occasional" from the RFC in this instance is harmless error. ... The VE's testimony is substantial evidence that there are jobs in significant numbers within the national economy that Plaintiff can still perform when the gradual and occasional situational change adaptation is accounted for.

An ALJ determining residual functional capacity must consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including medical sources’ statements about what the claimant can still do.

Simoneau · filed 2026-03-31(a)(3)

In making the RFC determination, the ALJ must consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including any statements about what the claimant can still do provided by any medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

An RFC assessment must have evidentiary support for the claimant’s specific work-related abilities, including standing and walking.

Gohn · filed 2026-03-31(a)(1)

The RFC is the most a claimant can still do in a work setting despite the claimant’s physical or mental limitations. ... The ALJ provides no explanation why greater limitations were warranted as to some aspects but not others, or how the evidence supports the RFC assessment with respect to standing and walking. In light of the ALJ’s determination that plantar fasciitis is a severe impairment, and that additional limitations were warranted specifically relating to her feet, the Court is left unable to determine whether the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity may be based on treatment notes and other record evidence without a specific medical opinion supporting each limitation.

Stovall · filed 2026-03-31(a)(1)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ “made up” the RFC, the ALJ determined Plaintiff’s RFC precisely as required. The RFC is based on the treatment notes and Plaintiff’s assessed mental impairments. Plaintiff herself described what she does with the limitations she reported. There is no requirement that a limitation be supported by a specific medical opinion.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the work-related abilities a person retains despite limitations.

Foley · filed 2026-03-31(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). ... In the RFC analysis, the ALJ considered Foley’s hallucinations and paranoia.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all known medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity; the assessment may differ from persuasive medical opinions when substantial evidence supports it.

Nett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-21(a)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2), the ALJ is required to consider all the “medically determinable impairments of which [the ALJ is] aware, including [the plaintiff’s] medically determinable impairments that are not-severe . . . .” when assessing the RFC. ... Notwithstanding Dr. Kurtin’s and Dr. McCary’s persuasive medical opinions, the ALJ’s RFC determination regarding Plaintiff’s fingering and handling limitations was supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ formulates residual functional capacity based on all relevant evidence.

FARIS v. KIJAZAKI · filed 2022-07-20(a)

An ALJ is charged with formulating the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) based on all of the relevant evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including opinions from physicians who reviewed the claimant’s records without examining him.

Bowers v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-21(a)(3)

But considering the State agency physicians’ opinions was not itself an error, because the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence; the assessment need not mirror a particular opinion.

(SS) Lewandowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-21(a)(3)

The RFC need not mirror a particular opinion; it is an assessment formulated by the ALJ based on all relevant evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires consideration of all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Wilkerson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-21(a)(3)

This assessment requires consideration of “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” and is used at step five to determine whether the applicant “can adjust to any other work that exists in the national economy.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3), (5)(ii). ... The Court also agrees with the ALJ that the opinions contained within the assessments are inconsistent with the other medical evidence in the record regarding Wilkerson’s capabilities, such as in the areas of cooking, cleaning, house and yard work, managing finances, and social activities.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires consideration of all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Davis v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-22(a)(3)

In making this finding, the Administrative Law Judge properly considered the entire record and weighed the evidence in the case.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider fatigue and its effect on a claimant’s functioning when determining residual functional capacity.

Wakefield v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-25(a)(1)

RFC is a measure of “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [their] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). When determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ will consider their impairments as well as any related symptoms, such as fatigue.5 Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... The failure to properly address Plaintiff’s fatigue requires remand.

Section 404.1545(a) requires adjudicators to consider relevant evidence, including reports of daily activities, when assessing residual functional capacity.

PLANK v. SAUL · filed 2022-07-25(a)

The Regulations advise that adjudicators will consider all of the relevant evidence in the record when assessing an individual’s RFC, and explicitly includes reports of daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a), 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the ability to perform physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite impairments.

Parker v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-26(a)(1)

An individual’s RFC is his ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from his impairments.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite her limitations; the ALJ need not include restrictions unsupported by the record.

Mead v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-26(a)(1)

A claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) is “the most [she] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC, and the ALJ did not err by failing to include additional limitations for off-task behavior, absenteeism, or the use of a cane.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite impairments and is assessed using all relevant evidence of work-related abilities.

Llewellyn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-28(a)

The RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite the limitations imposed by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). It is “a function-by-function assessment based upon all of the relevant evidence of an individual's ability to do work-related activities,” Id., and must be supported by substantial evidence. Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 870 (7th Cir. 2000). ... In this case, the ALJ accurately characterized the medical evidence and supported his RFC determination with substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity assesses the most a claimant can do in a work setting despite physical or mental limitations.

Hatcher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-28(a)

A claimant’s “residual functional capacity” is an assessment of the most the claimant can do in a work setting despite his or her physical or mental limitations.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider all relevant evidence in the claimant’s case record.

Maddalone v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-28(a)(1)

In making this determination, the ALJ must consider “all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.”

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to account for limitations caused by symptoms such as pain.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-07-29(a)(3)

Limitations resulting from symptoms such as pain are also factored into the assessment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence and requires remand to further develop the record and further consider Plaintiff’s maximum RFC.

An ALJ assesses residual functional capacity using medical opinions and all other record evidence; a lifting restriction may be omitted when substantial evidence supports that finding.

Dennis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-29(a)(3)

An administrative law judge makes this finding based on a consideration of medical opinions and all other evidence in the case record. ... As a result, the ALJ’s findings to not include a lifting limitation in the RFC analysis is also supported by substantial evidence and comports with applicable law.

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

Stout v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-01(a)(1)

Put otherwise, the RFC is the most a claimant can do despite their physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence, including relevant nonmedical evidence.

BALTHASER v. SAUL · filed 2022-07-20(a)(1)

The ALJ must explicitly evaluate this report and other relevant non- medical evidence when reaching his RFC determination on remand.

An ALJ must base a claimant’s residual functional capacity on all relevant medical and other evidence, including significant evidence supporting the claimant’s reported symptoms.

Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-11(a)(1), (a)(3)

Likewise, the ALJ did not adequately address significant evidence supporting Michael’s testimony about his continued pain, and the ALJ’s determination therefore was not “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), (3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires residual functional capacity to be based on all relevant evidence; it need not mirror a particular medical opinion.

(SS) Shank v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2022-07-07(a)(3)

The RFC need not mirror a particular opinion; it is an assessment formulated by the ALJ based on all relevant evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3).

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

Puglisi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-13(a)(1)

A residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is the most a claimant can do despite her functional limitations and is based upon all relevant evidence including the claimant’s own testimony, observations by physicians or other persons, and medical records. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The Court need not recite every paper the ALJ relied on in determining Plaintiff’s RFC—including his credibility determination of Plaintiff’s testimony and the persuasiveness of Dr. Hershkowitz’s findings. Suffice it to say, a reasonable person could accept these and similar treatment notes as adequate support that Plaintiff can lift no more than 50 pounds at a time and up to 25 pounds from 1/3 to 2/3 of a workday.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to evaluate a physician’s opinion about a claimant’s remaining capabilities in light of the other evidence.

Wines v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-07(a)(3)

Although a claimant may provide a statement containing a physician’s opinion of her remaining capabilities, the ALJ evaluates such a statement in light of the other evidence presented. See 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1527(d), 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 places responsibility for determining residual functional capacity with the ALJ, who may interpret the medical record in making that determination.

Villapudua v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-07

Moreover, we agree with the Commissioner that the ALJ’s interpretation of the record did not constitute impermissible “lay opinion.” See Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[I]t is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the claimant’s physician, to determine residual functional capacity.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545).

An RFC assessment must have medical opinion or other adequate evidence supporting the claimant’s ability to perform work-related functions, including relevant limits on staying on task and attending work.

Burden v. Saul · filed 2022-07-08

The second error is that the RFC for the period of medical improvement is not supported by any medical opinion or other adequate evidence. ... None of the records cited by the ALJ in support of her RFC findings contain assessments of the Plaintiff's ability to perform work-related functions or her ability to remain on task and avoid excessive absences from work.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence and the claimant’s ability to meet the requirements of work when assessing residual functional capacity.

Vargas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-08(a)(1), (a)(4)

To determine an individual’s RFC, an ALJ assesses all the relevant medical and other evidence in the case and considers a claimant’s ability to meet the “physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), (a)(4). ... Further, while the ALJ could have been more specific in assessing each of the exertional work-related abilities in a function-by-function assessment, the ALJ sufficiently analyzed Plaintiff’s physical abilities by discussing all the relevant evidence of record in his RFC analysis.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including sitting limitations the ALJ finds persuasive.

Craft v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-08(a)(3)

It is a determination based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence and is ultimately an administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3); Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996). ... Despite this determination, the ALJ failed to explain why he did not accept and/or incorporate Dr. Scheidler’s sitting limitations in his RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including evidence that conflicts with the assessed limitations.

Jensen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-11(a)(3)

Relevant evidence includes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... Yet the ALJ failed to reconcile these observations—which largely occurred in the context of visits unrelated to her back or hip impairments—with other contrary evidence, or even to address some of that evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider the entire record, including opinion evidence, nonsevere impairments, and identified limitations.

Morales v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-11(a)

In determining RFC, an ALJ must consider the entire record, including opinion evidence, impairments that are not severe, and any limitations the ALJ finds.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity before deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Kelter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-13

Before determining a claimant’s ability to perform past relevant work at step four of the sequential evaluation process,7 the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1545. ... Here, the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and, as shown earlier, any error in the ALJ’s evaluation of PA Shelton’s opinion is harmless.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite impairments, considering all relevant evidence.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-14

RFC describes what a claimant is capable of doing despite his or her impairments considering all relevant evidence, which consists of physical limitations, symptoms, an other limitations beyond the symptoms.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe, and all relevant medical and other evidence.

Aguilar v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-14

In formulating an RFC, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not “severe,” and evaluate “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including the claimant’s testimony. ... In sum, the ALJ reasonably weighted the record evidence and reasonably accounted for all Plaintiff's limitations, The ALJ’s RFC finding is therefore supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence and to address the claimant’s ability to sustain regular work.

Lake v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-15(a)(3)

In evaluating a claimant's RFC, an ALJ is expected to take into consideration all the relevant evidence, including both medical and non-medical evidence and must discuss the individual's ability to perform sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis (i.e., 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule). See 20 C.F.R.§ 404.1545(a)(3); SSR 96-8p. As noted above, the ALJ failed to properly analyze Plaintiff’s impairments in combination, including her chronic pain disorder and erred in evaluating her symptom reports which also left unsupported the assessment of her RFC.

An ALJ must base the residual functional capacity finding on all relevant record evidence and explain how the evidence supports the assessed limitations.

Cuevas v. O'Malley · filed 2022-07-18(a)

An ALJ’s ability to make inferences regarding Plaintiff’s functional limitations caused by her impairments is not unlimited. It must be tied to the evidence in the record such that the ALJ’s RFC finding is based on all the relevant evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and requires its assessment to rest on all relevant evidence.

SPANO v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-07-18(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). The finding must be based on all the relevant evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Miles v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-03(a)(3)

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ should scrutinize “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Although the ALJ noted numerous records supporting his findings, he appears to have omitted consideration of aspects of those records and others that support additional limitations. Thus, the ALJ’s discussion is not sufficient to permit meaningful review of the decision.

An ALJ must assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence in the record, including evidence of physical and mental limitations.

Jensen-Schmahl v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-02(a)(1)

The ALJ must base his RFC assessment on all relevant evidence in the record, which can include medical history, medical sources, reports of daily activities, lay evidence, recorded observations, effects of symptoms, and testimony during the hearing. ... Considering the analysis above, this is what the ALJ did.

In assessing residual functional capacity, the administrative law judge must consider all relevant medical and other evidence.

Truesdell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-10(a)(3)

The administrative law judge must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evi- dence.” Id. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions and limitations that may affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Westfall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-04

“To determine RFC, the ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence, including medical opinions and facts, physical and mental abilities, non-severe impairments, and [p]laintiff’s subjective evidence of symptoms.” Stanton v. Astrue, 2009 WL 1940539, *9 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b)-(e)), aff’d, 370 F. App’x 231 (2d Cir. 2010). ... Accordingly, I am unable to conclude that the ALJ’s failure to evaluate the opinions of Faulk and Paarlberg was harmless.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence.

Fox v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2020-09-18(a)

The ALJ is responsible for assessing residual functional capacity and takes into account all of the relevant medical and other evidence in doing so.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the record as a whole without relying on any one medical opinion.

Meding v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-09(a)(3)

The ALJ is not bound to base RFC on any one medical opinion, but may rely on the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider relevant evidence of limitations; an assessment that overlooks significant evidence and lacks adequate explanation cannot stand.

Wills v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-09

Because the ALJ’s assessment of Wills’ RFC is not supported by substantial evidence or an adequate discussion of the actual evidence, the determination cannot stand.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for relevant medical evidence, including recent assessments that earlier medical opinions did not consider.

Mando v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-02

Because the ALJ failed to reconcile his RFC assessment with Plaintiffs most recent medical assessments, the ALJ did not demonstrate that he properly considered all of the evidence.

Residual functional capacity must be determined from all relevant medical and other evidence in the record.

(SS) Erb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-06(a)(3)

“In determining a claimant's RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record such as medical records, lay evidence and the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.” Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (residual functional capacity determined based on all relevant medical and other evidence). ... The ALJ fully supported her determination based on multiple medical and psychological opinions and the evidence of record.

Residual functional capacity must be based on all evidence in the record, including the claimant’s testimony.

Parise v. Saul · filed 2019-12-10(a)

A claimant’s RFC must be based on all evidence in the record, including the claimant’s testimony.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence, which entails drawing inferences from medical opinion evidence.

Leavell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-17(a)(3)

The Court finds this allegation without merit. The ALJ has a duty to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence” and a duty to resolve conflicts between conflicting medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); Morgan, 169 F.3d at 601. These duties necessarily compel the ALJ to draw inferences from medical opinion evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires residual functional capacity to be determined from all relevant medical and other evidence.

(SS) McMillen IV v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-17(a)(3)

“In determining a claimant's RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record such as medical records, lay evidence and the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.” Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (residual functional capacity determined based on all relevant medical and other evidence). ... The ALJ fully supported his determination based on multiple medical and psychological opinions and the evidence of record.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires a residual functional capacity assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including evidence of pain and limitations in sitting.

(SS) Mendez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-23(a)(3)

“In determining a claimant's RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record such as medical records, lay evidence and the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.” Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (residual functional capacity determined based on all relevant medical and other evidence). ... Here, remand is appropriate so that the Commissioner may fully consider Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (1) in light of this Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s pain testimony was reliable and consistent with the objective medical evidence of record and (2) with full consideration of the evidence concerning Plaintiff’s ability to sit.

An RFC may be supported by the record as a whole even when some evidence favors greater limitations.

Baker v. Saul · filed 2019-12-27(a)(3)

That Baker may be able to point to limited contrary evidence in the record—such as aberrant, situation-dependent moments of mental instability—is of no consequence. Baker’s RFC is, when considered under the total record, well-supported and goes as far as the record allows.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence.

Belzman v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-31(a)(3)

The ALJ is responsible for assessing a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 CFR §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c); see Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883 (citing Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-8p (July 2, 1996), 1996 WL 374184, at *50).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires residual functional capacity to be determined from all relevant medical and other evidence.

(SS) Tuupoina v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-06(a)(3)

“In determining a claimant's RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record such as medical records, lay evidence and the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.” Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (residual functional capacity determined based on all relevant medical and other evidence). ... Thus, the ALJ’s determination was appropriately supported by the record as a whole.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including evidence that conflicts with the assessment.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-28(a)(3)

In crafting an RFC, the ALJ must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” in the record. ... In so doing, the ALJ appears to have ignored entirely evidence that contradicts his RFC analysis without adequate explanation.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to base the residual functional capacity assessment on the entire case record, including objective medical findings and the claimant’s subjective complaints.

ROSS v. SAUL · filed 2019-10-17

Having concluded that remand is necessary for further consideration of the treating opinions detailed above, the Court continues in the interest of offering guidance on remand concerning the ALJ’s need to reevaluate Claimant’s RFC, weigh the opinion evidence, and evaluate Claimant’s credibility. “The regulations require that an ALJ’s RFC be based on the entire case record, including the objective medical findings and the credibility of the claimant’s subjective complaints.” Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167, 1170-71 (10th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545(a) calls for an RFC assessment of what a claimant can still do despite limitations, based on medical source statements and other record evidence.

Thaxton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-18(a)

The residual functional capacity 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, 416.945(a), 416.946. The Administrative Law Judge makes this finding based on a consideration of medical source statements and all other evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 404.1545(a), 404.1546, 416.929, 416.945(a), 416.946.

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

Hanna v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-21(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 was not required to include limitations in the RFC for lupus flares.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) bases a residual functional capacity assessment on all relevant evidence in the record, not solely a doctor’s opinion.

Little v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-24(a)(1)

Instead, the assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity is “based on all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” and not only on a doctor’s opinion.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and is assessed using all relevant evidence.

Ramirez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-25(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’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite her limitations; its assessment requires some medical evidence but does not require a medical opinion directly addressing workplace function.

Rhodes v. Saul · filed 2019-10-31(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most she can do despite her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Thus, the RFC determination was based on “some medical evidence,” and a medical opinion directly addressing Ms. Rhodes’ ability to function in the workplace was not required.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations and requires the assessment to consider all relevant evidence.

JURASINSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-10-31(a)

Pursuant to the Commissioner’s regulations, RFC refers to the most a claimant can do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). The RFC assessment must be based upon all relevant evidence, including medical records, medical source opinions, and a description of Plaintiff’s own symptoms. Id. ... The evidence highlighted by the ALJ supports her finding as to Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.

Residual functional capacity assesses a claimant’s ability to work despite her impairments.

Bryant v. Social Security · filed 2019-11-01(a)(1)

The RFC is an assessment of a claimant’s ability to do work despite her impairments. Walton v. Astrue, 773 F. Supp. 2d 742, 747 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) and SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5 (July 2, 1996)).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all record evidence, including the claimant’s testimony about pain and other symptoms, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Bailey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-11-06(a)

With regard to the fourth step, an individual’s RFC is what she “is still able to do despite the limitations caused by [her] impairments.” Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). ... The ALJ considers all of the record evidence in determining the claimant’s RFC, Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238, including a claimant’s own testimony of pain or other subjective symptoms, Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210. ... Because Bailey has not shown that the district court erred in finding that the ALJ’s assessment of her subjective complaints and credibility was supported by substantial evidence, we agree that the ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE accurately included her stated pain level and residual functional capacity.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and is assessed from all relevant evidence.

Cordileone v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-07(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).

Section 404.1545(a) permits the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all record evidence, including evidence beyond medical reports.

Low v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-11-07(a)

Because RFC assessment is made based on “all of the evidence in the record, not only the medical evidence, [it is] well within the province of the ALJ.” Dixon v. Apfel, No. 98-5167, 1999 WL 651389, at **2 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 1999); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to rely on an older state agency RFC opinion when the ALJ considers all the evidence, including later medical records.

Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-12(a)(2)

It is not error, however, for an ALJ to rely on the allegedly outdated opinion of a state agency consultant, when it is obvious the ALJ has considered all the evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a person can do in a work setting despite his limitations.

Emmert v. Saul · filed 2019-11-12(a)(1)

An RFC assessment measures the most a person can do, despite his limitations, in a work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

NEISWONGER v. COLVIN · filed 2019-11-12(a)

RFC refers to the most a claimant can still do despite his/her limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a).

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

Brye v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-11-12(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence in the record; an assistive-device limitation may be omitted when the evidence as a whole does not support it.

Dunn v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-02(a)(1)

Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole that supports the ALJ’s decision to omit an assistive-device limitation from his RFC determination. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (“We will assess your residual functional capacity based on all the relevant evidence in your case record.”).

An RFC assessment should consider all relevant evidence in the record, including opinions from treating physicians or other acceptable medical sources.

Standish v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-25(a)(3)

An individual’s RFC should be based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, including opinions submitted by treating physicians or other acceptable medical sources.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence in the case record when determining residual functional capacity.

Parrott v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-23(a)(1)

The claimant’s residual functional capacity is “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). To determine the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider “all the relevant evidence in [the] case record.” Id.

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

Bradley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-23(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most a claimant can do despite [the claimant’s] limitations.” Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). ... Here, the ALJ conducted a proper assessment of Bradley’s symptoms, consistent with the relevant regulations and with SSR 16-3p, and that assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC assessment without a medical opinion on workplace limitations when the medical record adequately supports the assessment.

Brunaugh v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-23

Based on a careful review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC assessment was supported by substantial evidence, including medical evidence, addressing Plaintiff’s ability to function in the workplace, and the ALJ was under no obligation to further develop the record.

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

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

A claimant’s RFC is an indication of an individual’s work-related abilities despite their limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a).

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

Young v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-24(a)

Regulations define RFC as “what [the claimant] can do” despite his “physical or mental limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

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

Murphy v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-24(a)

Regulations define RFC as “what [the claimant] can do” despite her “physical or mental limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

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

Armstrong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-24(a)

A plaintiff’s RFC “is defined as the most a [plaintiff] can still do despite the physical and mental limitations resulting from her impairments.” Poe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 342 F. App’x 149, 155 (6th Cir. 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Jines v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-24(a)(3)

In formulating an RFC finding, “the ALJ evaluates all relevant medical and other evidence and considers what weight to assign to treating, consultative, and examining physicians’ opinions.” ... Elsewhere in the opinion, the ALJ laid out exhaustive evidence supporting the contention that Jines mental impairments only created moderate limitations on her RFC.

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

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2019-09-25(a)(1)

A claimant’s “residual functional capacity is the most [she] can do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); see McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 614 (8th Cir. 2011) (“A claimant’s [residual functional capacity] represents the most he can do despite the combined effects of all of his credible limitations and must be based on all credible evidence.”).

Residual functional capacity is based on all relevant medical and other evidence, including a claimant’s description of limitations from alleged symptoms.

Mosley v. Saul · filed 2019-09-25(a)(3)

The RFC is based on all relevant medical and other evidence in the record and may include a claimant’s own description of limitations arising from ‘alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3); see also S.S.R. 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do in a work setting despite limitations caused by impairments.

Guay v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2019-09-25(a)(1)

The residual functional capacity assessment is a finding of the most a claimant can do in a work setting despite her limitations caused by impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Guay has not shown that the ALJ erred in the residual functional capacity assessment. Substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s finding.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ determining residual functional capacity to consider impairments and related symptoms that may limit what a claimant can do at work, including mental limitations.

Portalatin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-25(a)(1)

To determine the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s “impairment(s), and any related symptoms . . . [which] may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what [the claimant] can do in the work setting.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Because Dr. Fkiaras’ assessment of Plaintiff “centered exclusively” on Plaintiff’s physical impairments and “made no assessment of Plaintiff’s work-related limitations” with respect to his mental impairments, remand is required.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider relevant medical and other evidence when determining residual functional capacity; relying on raw medical records without a medical opinion or functional analysis is legal error.

Rusch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(a)(3)

An ALJ considers “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” when he determines a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Without the requisite medical opinion or functional analysis, the Court is left to conclude that the ALJ determined Plaintiff’s RFC by interpreting his medical records himself. Such a determination constitutes legal error requiring remand.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to weigh the whole record, including medical records, opinions, and the claimant’s complaints, when determining residual functional capacity.

MCCURDY v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-09-26

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. ... In sum, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in discussing and assessing the medical opinions and other relevant evidence of record in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires a mental residual functional capacity finding to have evidentiary support; an ALJ must explain why a relevant examining psychologist’s opinion was disregarded.

Stanley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-27(a)(1)

Here, the Court finds, in the absence of any reason for disregarding Dr. Levine’s opinion in the RFC assessment, substantial evidence in the record as a whole does not support the ALJ’s RFC finding with respect to Plaintiff’s mental impairments.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including the weight assigned to medical opinions.

Kirkhart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(a)(3)

In formulating a residual functional capacity, the ALJ evaluates all relevant medical and other evidence and considers what weight to assign to treating, consultative, and examining physicians' opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes medical evidence and other evidence, including claimant testimony, relevant to assessing residual functional capacity.

Dixon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-12(a)(3)

The RFC is based upon medical evidence—including statements from medical sources about what the claimant still can do—as well as “other evidence, such as testimony by the claimant or his friends and family.” Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 676 (7th Cir. 2008); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider the record as a whole, including medical evidence, subjective evidence, and the claimant’s background.

Lugo v. Saul · filed 2019-09-12

ALJ Wexler thus appropriately considered the record as a whole, assessing the “objective medical evidence, opinions of examining or treating physicians, subjective evidence submitted by the claimant, as well as the claimant’s background” in determining Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when determining the most a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations.

Coca v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-13(a)(1)-(3)

If at step three the claimant’s impairment is not equivalent to a listed impairment, the ALJ must next consider all of the relevant medical and other evidence and determine what is the “most [the claimant] can still do” in a work setting despite his physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1)-(3), 416.945(a)(1)-(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider relevant evidence; an RFC based on a misreading of critical evidence lacks substantial evidentiary support.

Lambert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-13(a)(3)

The ALJ misread critical evidence in the record and relied on his error in formulating his RFC; therefore, the RFC cannot be said to be supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity must be assessed using all relevant evidence, including medical records, medical opinions, and the claimant’s description of symptoms.

MEACHAM v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-13(a)

The RFC assessment must be based upon all relevant evidence, including medical records, medical source opinions, and a claimant’s description of her own symptoms.

An RFC determination should consider all relevant evidence in the record, including opinions from treating physicians and other acceptable medical sources.

Williams v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-13(a)(3)

Determination of an individual’s RFC should be based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, including opinions submitted by treating physicians or other acceptable medical sources.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC finding without a specific medical opinion or medical evidence precisely supporting each component.

Klopfenstein v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-16(a)(1)

However, “there is no requirement that an RFC finding be supported by a specific medical opinion,” id, or that there must be medical evidence that precisely supports each component of the RFC, Peterson v. Colvin, No. 13-0329-CV-W-ODS, 2013 WL 6237868, at *4 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 3, 2013).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence, including nonsevere impairments and subjective complaints, when determining residual functional capacity.

Mitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16

To determine the RFC, the ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence, including medical opinions and facts, physical and mental abilities, non-severe impairments, and a claimant’s subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using relevant medical and non-medical evidence, including medical sources’ statements about what the claimant can still do.

Reyna v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(a)(3)

The ALJ is responsible for assessing Plaintiff’s RFC based on a review of relevant medical and non-medical evidence, including any statement about what Plaintiff can still do, provided by any medical sources. Id. §§ 404.1527(d), 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Wheelock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-18(a)(3)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including the medical opinions of treating, examining and non-examining medical sources, as well as the opinions of other sources.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) bases the residual functional capacity assessment on all relevant evidence, including a claimant’s description of limitations from alleged symptoms.

Lyde v. Saul · filed 2019-09-18(a)(3)

It is based upon all relevant evidence, which may include the claimant’s own description of limitations from alleged symptoms. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... The court finds the ALJ has built an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence in the record to his conclusion that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform at the range of medium work with the non-exertional restrictions described above.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite impairments, based on all relevant evidence of limitations and symptoms.

Roth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-18

RFC describes what a claimant is capable of doing despite his or her impairments, considering all relevant evidence, which consists of physical limitations, symptoms, and other limitations beyond the symptoms. See Martone, 70 F. Supp. 2d at 150; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.