20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

An RFC assessment may consider a claimant’s daily activities and work history among other factors.

Alexander v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-05(a)

The ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s daily activities and Plaintiff’s work history as two among many factors influencing the RFC determination.

An RFC assessment must consider the entire record, including opinion evidence, nonsevere impairments, and the claimant’s limitations.

Kesselring v. Saul · filed 2020-08-06(a)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the Commissioner to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including the claimant’s statements about symptoms such as pain.

McKinney v. SSA · filed 2020-08-12(a)(3)

When calculating a claimant’s RFC, the Commissioner must assess all relevant medical and other evidence, including the claimant’s statements about his symptoms, such as pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

A residual functional capacity assessment may include limitations supported by the medical records and the claimant’s testimony.

Plemons v. Saul · filed 2020-08-13(a)(1)

Thus, in light of the medical records and Plaintiff’s own testimony submitted after Dr. Sochat made his determination, the ALJ properly concluded Plaintiff could perform “occasional pushing and pulling with bilateral upper extremities” but “no overhead reaching bilaterally.” Id. at 19.

An RFC assessment must account for relevant medical evidence that conflicts with the assessed limitations, or explain why that evidence was excluded.

TURANO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-14(a)(1)

In short, the ALJ should have considered all of Dr. Del Monte’s records, including his January 2016 report, or should have explained why the May and July 2015 records were relevant but the January 2016 record—which conflicted with the ALJ’s RFC determination—was not.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC determination to consider all relevant evidence, including medical source diagnoses, treatment, observations, and opinions.

Durbin v. Saul · filed 2020-08-17

However, an RFC determination must be based on all of the relevant evidence, including the diagnoses, treatment, observations, and opinions of medical sources, such as treating and examining physicians.

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

Spagnola v. Saul · filed 2020-08-03(a)(3)

While the task of assessing a claimant’s RFC is reserved to the Commissioner and not a medical expert, an ALJ must utilize “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” in the record to assess a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); Diaz v. Chater, 55 F.3d 300, 306 n.2 (7th Cir. 1995). ... In this present case, the ALJ’s RFC assessment fails to adhere to the above standards and requires that this case be remanded for a proper determination for the following reasons.

An RFC limitation to simple tasks does not account for limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace.

Flannery v. Saul · filed 2020-08-03

Even if supported by substantial evidence, limitations to work with simple tasks do not “account for a limitation in concentration, persistence or pace.”

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including the claimant’s testimony and others’ observations.

Mazzaferro v. Saul · filed 2020-08-04(a)(3)

This determination takes into account “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including the claimant’s own testimony and the observations of others.

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

Maddox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-05(a)(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ is expected to take into consideration all of the relevant evidence, including both medical and non-medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... However, the ALJ did not err in the RFC determination, so the Commissioner’s incorrect argument is of no importance.

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

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-05(a)(3)

The Administrative Law Judge makes this finding based on a consideration of medical source statements and all other evidence in the case record.

An ALJ must base residual functional capacity on record evidence and may not derive work limitations by interpreting raw medical data without support.

Dalzell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-05(a)(3)

An ALJ determines a claimant’s RFC “based on all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” including statements about what the claimant can do “provided by medical sources” and “descriptions and observations of [the claimant’s] limitations from [his or her] impairment(s), including limitations that result from [the claimant’s] symptoms, such as pain, provided by [his or her] family, neighbors, friends, or other persons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... In other words, “the ALJ inappropriately interpreted the severity of raw medical data, a task the ALJ is not entitled to perform.” Tipton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:16-CV-00493, 2018 WL 524876, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 24, 2018); see also Eminian, 2012 WL 4504511, at *3.

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

Baldauf v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-06(a)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(2), 404.1527. ... The Court must remand so that an ALJ may further consider the treating psychiatrist’s opinion.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, and all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Sells v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-07

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.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including subjective complaints of pain, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Basque v. Saul · filed 2020-08-11(a)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain. Id. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence, including the claimant’s alleged symptoms, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Winner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-13(a)(3)

As the court found with regard to the ALJ’s mental RFC assessment, the ALJ complied with the regulations in assessing Winner’s physical RFC by expressly stating that he considered all the evidence and all of Winner’s alleged symptoms.

An ALJ must assess residual functional capacity using relevant medical and nonmedical evidence and explain how the evidence supports the assessment sufficiently to permit review.

Poole v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-18(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). ... Remand is also required because the ALJ failed to provide sufficient analysis connecting Dr. Balderman’s “benign” findings, or any findings in the record, to his RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to identify what a claimant can still do despite limitations, with substantial evidence supporting the functional abilities assigned.

(SS) Chavez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-20(a)

Without medical opinions to support the conclusion that Plaintiff had the ability frequently reach overhead with her left arm, the ALJ’s RFC lacks the support of substantial evidence.

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

Haines v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-24(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) requires an RFC assessment to consider medical evidence and other evidence of limitations that may affect a claimant’s ability to work.

Lawrence v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-25(a)(3)

A claimant’s RFC must be based upon the medical evidence in the record and other evidence, such as testimony by the claimant or his friends and family. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... With no discussion of her hearing loss, the Court cannot determine whether consideration of her hearing loss may have altered the ALJ’s decision. This requires remand.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the record as a whole; a supporting medical opinion is not always required.

Short v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-25(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). ... The ALJ is obligated to formulate a plaintiff’s RFC based on the record as a whole, not just upon the medical opinions alone.

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

Morales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-28(a)(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ is expected to take into consideration all the relevant evidence, both medical and non-medical. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3); 416.945(a)(3). ... The ALJ also failed to provide a logical bridge to her conclusion that, beyond being not as severe as claimed, the headaches were a non-severe impairment requiring no RFC limitations at all.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider physical and mental abilities, symptoms including pain, and limitations that could interfere with regular work.

Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-31(a)

In making an RFC assessment, the ALJ should 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 v. Astrue, 631 F. Supp. 2d 200, 221 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Dressler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-02(a)(3)

The A.L.J. may use all relevant evidence in record in assessing a plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using relevant medical and nonmedical evidence.

Lockwood v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-03(a)

The ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s RFC using the relevant medical and nonmedical evidence in the record, and thus the ALJ applied the proper legal standard. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence; an ALJ must explain how material conflicting evidence was reconciled.

Howard v. Saul · filed 2020-09-08(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 failure to explain how these pieces of evidence were reconciled with the RFC requires remand.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider relevant medical evidence, but need not recite every item favorable to the claimant.

Figueroa-Crespo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(a)(3)

First, while the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, “the ALJ [is] not required to recite every piece of evidence which favored [the claimant].” ... Thus, the ALJ properly considered the medical opinions of record, including the observations from Dr. Ross, regarding Plaintiff’s mental impairments.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires consideration of relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including significant limitations identified in medical opinions.

Magallanes v. Saul · filed 2020-09-08(a)(1)

In determining the RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including medical records, lay evidence, and “the effects of symptoms . . . that are reasonably attributable to the medical condition.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Thus, the Court finds the ALJ failed to properly address at least one significant, probative limitation in the State agency opinions, and such error was not harmless.

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

Thompkins v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-09-09(a)(3)

A plaintiff’s RFC is reserved for the ALJ and is concluded based on the relevant medical evidence and other evidence included in the case record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... The record demonstrates that the ALJ properly considered the objective evidence regarding Plaintiff’s identified severe impairments in making the RFC assessment.

An RFC determination must consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including credible testimony, objective medical evidence, and medical opinions.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2020-09-11(a)(3)

The claimant's RFC is determined based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence in the record, including the claimant's credible testimony, the objective medical evidence, and medical opinions from treating and consulting sources.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity by weighing the evidence as a whole, including medical records, medical opinions, and the claimant’s complaints and stated limitations.

PEREZ v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-09-11(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.

Section 404.1545(a) requires residual functional capacity to be assessed using all record evidence, including evidence beyond medical opinions.

Frye v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-09-14(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), 416.945(a).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence.

Seely v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-16(a)(3)

The determination of a claimant’s RFC is an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner that is based on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including medical opinion evidence, medical records, lay evidence, and “the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.” See SSR 96–8p; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1513(a)(2). ... For these reasons, the Court finds the ALJ’s assessment of Petitioner’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC determination to consider all relevant evidence, including medical-source diagnoses, treatment, observations, and opinions.

Velasquez v. Saul · filed 2020-09-17

However, an RFC determination must be based on all of the relevant evidence, including the diagnoses, treatment, observations, and opinions of medical sources, such as treating and examining physicians. Id. § 404.1545.

An ALJ may determine residual functional capacity without a medical source opinion when the record otherwise contains sufficient evidence of the claimant’s functional limitations.

Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-17

While an ALJ may, in some circumstances, proceed without a medical source opinion as to the claimant's functional limitations, there must still be “sufficient evidence” for the ALJ to properly make the RFC determination. Here, the ALJ’s failure to obtain a medical opinion from a treating or examining source left him with insufficient evidence for his RFC determination with respect to Plaintiff’s mental impairments.

An RFC assessment considers all relevant medical and other evidence.

Mitchell v. Saul · filed 2020-09-18(a)(3)

An ALJ makes an RFC assessment based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence. ... The RFC finding is sufficiently supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to develop the record further when medical opinions are needed to assess a claimant’s functional limitations.

Falkosky v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-10(a)(3)

Because there was no medical opinion on Falkosky’s functional limitations, the ALJ had a responsibility to further develop the record under 20 CFR § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence in the record, including physical therapy treatment records.

Keaton v. Saul · filed 2020-09-15(a)(1)

An RFC is assessed using “all the relevant evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... It is clear from his decision that the ALJ did not consider the substance of the physical therapy notes or their consistency with the other assessments in the record.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider relevant medical opinions and the combined effects of all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

(SS) Westfall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-17(a)

The ALJ must consider all of the relevant medical opinions as well as the combined effects of all of the plaintiff’s impairments, even those that are not “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a); 416.945(a); Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

VEAL v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-21

The ALJ's RCF must take all relevant evidence into account. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... Moreover, the ALJ's hypothetical was not flawed for relying on the RFC, because the RFC was based on all relevant evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider medical opinion evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Anders v. Saul · filed 2020-09-21(a)(3)

When assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Accordingly, the court cannot trace the ALJ’s reasoning with respect to any of the three reasons he discounted Dr. Farhad’s opinion, and remand is appropriate for the ALJ to more thoroughly explain the weight given to the opinion.

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of the VA disability determination and the claimant’s subjective statements when assessing residual functional capacity.

(SS) Alcaraz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-23(a)

Because such evidence must be considered to determine Plaintiff’s RFC, the errors also impact the RFC determination.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions and opinions from other sources.

Steen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-23(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. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3); see also Rosario v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 490 F. App’x 192, 194 (11th Cir. 2012). ... Given Dr. Rothard’s consideration of the Claimant’s statements and the objective tests performed during the examination, the Court finds the ALJ’s sole reason for giving Dr. Rothard’s opinion partial weight is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical opinions and the combined effects of all impairments, including nonsevere impairments.

(SS) Midwood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-24(a)

The ALJ must consider all of the relevant medical opinions as well as the combined effects of all of the plaintiff’s impairments, even those that are not “severe.”

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence of what a claimant can do at work despite impairment-related physical or mental limitations.

Palencia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-25(a)(1)

To determine a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ makes an assessment based on all the relevant evidence of record as to what a claimant can do in a work setting despite any physical or mental limitations caused by the claimant’s impairments and related symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

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

Ford-Williams v. Saul · filed 2020-09-22(a)

RFC is the most a claimant can do despite her mental and physical limitations, that is, the degree in which the plaintiff’s symptoms affect her ability to work.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite the combined effects of credible limitations.

Pierce v. Saul · filed 2020-09-22

A claimant’s RFC is the most an individual can do despite the combined effects of his or her credible limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... The undersigned finds that the RFC formulated by the ALJ is not supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment must rest on relevant evidence; an ALJ cannot translate complex medical findings into functional limitations through lay judgment alone.

Gillespie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-23(a)(1)

The A.L.J. improperly relied on his own lay opinion of the medical records to determine Plaintiff's RFC instead of obtaining a medical opinion from a qualified medical source. This is reversible error because it leaves the Court unable to determine if the RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC finding supported by evidence of the claimant’s functional limitations; an insufficient record requires further development.

Fish v. Saul · filed 2020-09-24

However, as in Spackman, the record contains insufficient evidence for the ALJ to reach an RFC determination absent additional medical opinions.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations from medically determinable impairments and related symptoms.

Parker v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-09-25(a)

An RFC assessment measures the most a claimant can do despite the mental and physical limitations arising from medically determinable impairments and related symptoms. SSR 96-8p; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) measures residual functional capacity by what a claimant can still do despite exertional and nonexertional limitations.

Perez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-25(a)(1)

As noted above, an RFC is what a claimant can still do despite existing exertional and nonexertional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to account for limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace; a restriction to simple, routine tasks alone does not explain how the claimant can stay on task.

Holliday v. Saul · filed 2020-09-25(a)

The ALJ’s decision does not provide the logical explanation required for the court to conduct meaningful judicial review. As noted in Mascio, a limitation to simple and routine tasks, standing alone, is insufficient to address concentration, persistence, and pace. Moreover, the ALJ does not provide any explanation of how plaintiff’s exposure to changes is connected to his ability to stay on task and concentrate.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite her limitations; an assessment supported by substantial evidence may be upheld.

Devane v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-25(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [the claimant’s] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Despite Plaintiff’s contentions, the ALJ did consider the evidence in the record regarding her supported employment, activities of daily living and living situation. ... For these reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC determination considers all relevant medical and other evidence; giving partial weight to medical opinions does not necessarily leave an evidentiary gap.

Gentile v. Saul · filed 2020-09-28(a)(3)

The RFC determination is assessed “based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record[,]” including “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a)(1), (3). ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not create an evidentiary gap with his treatment of the medical opinion evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; the ALJ need not include absenteeism or time-off-task restrictions unsupported by the record.

STULL v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-09-28(a)

At the outset, the Court notes that 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), 416.945(a). ... Quite simply, Plaintiff never established that she would have the necessary absences per month, or the amount of time off task, that the VE indicated would preclude her from engaging in work on a regular and ongoing basis. Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence, and the Court does not find that the ALJ erred in posing his hypothetical question to the VE, and in subsequently finding the existence of jobs that Plaintiff could perform, based on that RFC.

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

FRITZ v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-09-28(a)

The Court notes at the outset that a claimant’s RFC is the most that that individual can do despite his or her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a).

Residual functional capacity must be assessed using all relevant record evidence, and claimed limitations may be discounted when inconsistent with that evidence.

Brock v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-28(a)(3)

An individual’s residual functional capacity should be based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, including opinions submitted by treating physicians or other acceptable medical sources. ... Here, in assessing Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ did not reject Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, including memory loss and confusion, but rather discounted them because he found the alleged limiting effects not entirely consistent with other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider medical opinions alongside the other relevant evidence.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-22

In rendering the RFC, therefore, the ALJ must consider the medical opinions in conjunction with all of the other evidence of record and will consider all of the medically determinable impairments, including impairments that are not severe, and the total limiting effects of each.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence.

Ricks v. Saul · filed 2020-09-28(a)(3)

A thorough review of the ALJ’s decision reveals that the ALJ in this case did take into consideration, not only medical opinion evidence, but the totality of the medical evidence, as well as Ricks’s written and oral testimony. ... The RFC assessment is based on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

An ALJ must determine residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence, including medical source statements and descriptions of the claimant’s limitations.

Watson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(a)(3)

An ALJ determines a claimant’s RFC “based on all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” including statements about what the claimant can do “provided by medical sources” and “descriptions and observations of [the claimant’s] limitations from [his or her] impairment(s), including limitations that result from [the claimant’s] symptoms, such as pain, provided by [his or her] family, neighbors, friends, or other persons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

An RFC assessment needs medical evidence supporting the claimant’s ability to work; the absence of a medical opinion on work limits does not itself provide that support.

Gilmore v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(a)(1)

An absence of opinion, however, does not constitute medical evidence upon which an ALJ may base her RFC assessment. ... For these reasons, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff retained the RFC to engage in light work, albeit with some restrictions, was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant medical and other evidence; it does not require the assessment to be based on a medical opinion.

Mack v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(a)(3)

Moreover, the pertinent regulations do not require that the ALJ base the RFC on a medical opinion at all. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c) (stating an ALJ is responsible for assessing RFC); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (RFC is assessed based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence in the record).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider the evidence as a whole when determining the most a claimant can do despite limitations.

KANTNER v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-29(a)(1)

Rather, it is the role of the ALJ to weigh the evidence as a whole, including medical opinions, medical records, a claimant’s subjective complaints, and descriptions of his own limitations, and then make an administrative finding as to the claimant’s RFC, the most that a claimant can do despite his limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527, 404.1529, 404.1545. ... The Court therefore finds that the ALJ did not fully consider the limitations found by Dr. Kalik, nor did the ALJ adequately explain his treatment of the limitations found in that opinion.

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

Hessler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a)(3)

An ALJ must consider all relevant record evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3). ... In determining the RFC, the ALJ considered the evidence as a whole and added limitations that included working only sedentary jobs, not climbing a ladder or a scaffold, not working at an unprotected height, not working around moving mechanical parts, and not operating a motor vehicle.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing what a claimant can do despite mental and physical impairments.

Torrado-Alvarado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a)(1)

In assessing an individual’s impairments, the ALJ considers all of the relevant evidence in the case record to determine the most the individual can do in a work setting despite the limitations imposed by his mental and physical impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The ALJ appropriately evaluated the medical opinions of record regarding Plaintiff’s mental impairments, and thus, the ALJ’s mental RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider relevant record evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Rivera-Collazo v. Social Security Commissioner · filed 2020-09-30(a)(3)

In reaching Plaintiff’s RFC finding, the ALJ reasonably considered the medical evidence in the record to find that Plaintiff could perform a range of light work.

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

Madera-Colon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a)(3)

“In making an RFC assessment, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including the opinions and statements by all medical sources.” Sánchez-Velázquez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Civ. No. 14-1723, 2016 WL 917913, at *3 (D.P.R. Mar. 10, 2016) (citations omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Thus, the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) bases a claimant’s residual functional capacity assessment on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Griffin v. Saul · filed 2020-10-01(a)(3)

The RFC assessment is based on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including medical records and the effects of symptoms attributable to a medically determinable impairment.

Sahra M. v. Saul · filed 2020-10-08(a)(1)

In addition, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including medical records, lay evidence, and the effects of a claimant’s subjective symptoms (i.e., pain), that may reasonably be attributed to a medically determinable impairment. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883 (citations omitted); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... Accordingly, plaintiff fails to identify any error in the ALJ’s RFC assessment, which is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess medical evidence and the claimant’s descriptions of limitations when determining residual functional capacity.

Magdalene v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-29(a)

In determining the RFC, the ALJ must assess medical evidence and the Plaintiff’s descriptions of her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). This is precisely what the ALJ did here in evaluating Dr. Nguyen’s opinions.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations.

(SS) Bianchini v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most that the claimant can do despite his physical and mental limitations.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including claimant testimony and limitations that are not severe.

Shank v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29

In making a proper RFC determination, the ALJ must consider all of the relevant evidence in the record, including testimony by the claimant, as well as evidence regarding limitations that are not severe.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as an assessment of what a person can do at work despite limitations from medically determinable impairments.

Mooradian v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29

RFC is a medical assessment of what an individual can do in a work setting in spite of functional limitations and environmental restrictions imposed by all of his medically determinable impairments.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using medical consultants’ opinions as one piece of the evidence.

Khalif v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(a)

In sum, the ALJ did not unreasonably rely on the opinions of the state agency medical consultants as one piece of evidence to conclude Plaintiff was capable of performing a limited range of sedentary work up through her date last insured.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s impairments and related symptoms when assessing how they limit work activity.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(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 a work setting.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Schillo v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most he can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Residual functional capacity should be based on all relevant evidence in the case record, including opinions from treating physicians or other acceptable medical sources.

Tran v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(a)(3)

An individual’s residual functional capacity should be based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, including opinions submitted by treating physicians or other acceptable medical sources. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (2012); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1). ... Here, the ALJ’s findings on residual functional capacity, which include considerations of Plaintiff’s complained-of shoulder pain, are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess what a claimant can still do in light of physical and mental limitations.

(SS) Malveaux v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a)

In determining residual functional capacity, the ALJ must assess what the plaintiff can still do in light of both physical and mental limitations. ... Finally, while plaintiff is correct that the ALJ does not explain why he found plaintiff limited to frequent contact with co-workers and supervisors but less frequent contact with the public, given that Dr. Akins identified limitations only as to public contact, the finding is consistent with the evidence.

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

Wood v. Saul · filed 2020-09-30(a)(3)

Because the ALJ failed to address record evidence that undermined his residual functional capacity determination, his decision was in error.

An RFC must account for a claimant’s supported limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace; limits to simple tasks, routine changes, and occasional interaction may be insufficient.

Kohne-Gaier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a)

Under Varga and O’Connor-Spinner, limiting Plaintiff to “simple, routine, and repetitive tasks,” infrequent and easily explained routine changes in the workplace, and occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the general public does not adequately account for Plaintiff’s limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace.

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

Schug v. Saul · filed 2020-09-30(a)(1)

A claimant’s “residual functional capacity is the most [she] can still do despite [her] limitations.”

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and requires assessment using all relevant evidence in the record.

Blackman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a)(1)

The RFC is an assessment of the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) and is assessed using “all the relevant evidence in [the] case record.” Id; see also Tankisi v. Commr. of Social Sec., 521 Fed. App’x 29, 33 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotations omitted).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence, including medical records, medical opinions, and the claimant’s descriptions of limitations.

Munoz-Martinez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-30(a)(1)

The ALJ is responsible for determining a claimant’s RFC based on all the relevant evidence, including a claimant’s medical record, the medical opinions, and a claimant’s descriptions of his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 404.1546. ... The ALJ appropriately considered the medical evidence and opinions of record in determining Plaintiff’s RFC. Thus, the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Sudler v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2020-10-01(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most work he or she can still do despite the relevant physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider medical facts and opinions alongside the claimant’s symptoms and descriptions of limitations.

Grencer v. Saul · filed 2020-10-01

In rendering an RFC determination, the ALJ must consider objective medical facts, diagnoses, and medical opinions based on such facts, as well as a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms, including pain and descriptions of other limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to base the residual functional capacity finding on the record as a whole, including credible testimony and medical source opinions.

Suggs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-02(a)(1)

The ALJ bases his residual functional capacity finding on a review of the record as a whole, including a claimant’s credible testimony and the opinions from a claimant’s medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... Here, ALJ Auble based his residual functional capacity determination on a review of the entire record, including the objective medical evidence.

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

MC KEE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-10-06(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most that the claimant can do despite the claimant’s limitations.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Major v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(a)(1), (a)(3)

The RFC determination is assessed “based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record[,]” including “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a)(1), (3).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to assess what a claimant can still do despite limitations based on all relevant evidence in the record.

Gaudette v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-16(a)(1)

The regulations provide that a claimant’s RFC is “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations,” and that the ALJ will assess a claimant’s RFC “based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Plaintiff has shown no deficiencies in either the ALJ’s RFC determination (AR 16–17) or his step-four finding that Plaintiff could return to his past relevant work as a machine operator helper (AR 23–24).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider medical opinions with the other relevant evidence when assessing a claimant’s physical and mental work abilities.

Gaunder v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-19(a)(3)

When evaluating the extent of a claimant's ability to do physical and mental work activities, the ALJ must consider medical opinions together with the rest of the relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for mental limitations supported by the record, including limitations that are not severe.

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-23

The ALJ’s error in this respect requires remand because the ALJ must determine an individual’s RFC, meaning “what an individual can still do despite his or her limitations,” based upon all of the relevant evidence in the record, even as to limitations that are not severe. ... However, the ALJ’s opinion in this case does not reflect her consideration of the relevant evidence and it fails to provide a logical bridge from the actual evidence to the ALJ’s RFC assessment.

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

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-26(a)(3)

The ALJ 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)(3), 404.1546(c), 416.929, 416.945(a), 416.946(c).

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

Alzaidi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-27(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). ... Although the statements provided by the treating sources were administrative findings, and therefore the ALJ was not obligated to assess the statements under the treating physician rule, remand is necessary because the ALJ failed to provide any discussion or analysis of the statements.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant record evidence, including medical source opinions.

Chandler v. Berryhill · filed 2020-10-27(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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1. ... Because his RFC determination was based on specific medical opinions, the ALJ in this case did not rely on his own lay opinion in violation of Ripley.

An RFC assessment measures the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and must consider all relevant evidence, including severe and non-severe impairments.

Hart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-30(a)(1)-(2)

An RFC determination represents “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations” and is determined based on “all the relevant evidence” in the record, including evidence of both severe and non-severe medically determinable impairments.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; the ALJ may weigh the record as a whole without matching a medical opinion exactly.

George v. Saul · filed 2020-10-14(a)(1)

The regulations state that the RFC is “the most [the disability claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 CFR § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Nevertheless, the ALJ’s opinion need “not perfectly correspond with any of the opinions of medical sources cited in his decision,” and the ALJ is “entitled to weigh all of the evidence available to make an RFC finding that [is] consistent with the record as a whole.” Matta, 508 Fed. Appx. at 56. ... The ALJ’s decision carefully explains why he assigned greater weight to certain opinions in the course of determining the RFC.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the entire record without adopting any one doctor’s opinion.

GRADY v. SAUL · filed 2020-10-26

The ALJ need not model her RFC finding on any one doctor's opinions, but rather may base it on the entire record. And that is precisely what the ALJ did in this case.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant record evidence; an updated examining medical opinion is not required.

Cur v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-04(a)(1)

The regulations require the ALJ to assess a claimant’s RFC “based on all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” and further explain that such evidence includes objective medical evidence (i.e., medical signs or laboratory findings), medical opinions, medical history, clinical findings, prescribed treatment, and the claimant’s own descriptions of his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(1)-(5), 416.913(a)(1)-(5). An RFC does not solely require medical opinion evidence, specifically from an updated examining medical source.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all record evidence, including medical evidence, and to explain how significant contrary evidence was evaluated.

Evans v. Saul · filed 2020-11-05

An ALJ's RFC finding is based on all of the record evidence, including the claimant's testimony regarding symptoms and limitations, the claimant's medical treatment records, and the medical opinion evidence. ... The ALJ’s decision fails to fully and fairly evaluate the available medical evidence. While the ALJ may have considered Plaintiff’s moderate and advanced conditions in making her RFC determination, the decision lacks discussion thereof.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions, non-severe impairments, and symptoms that could affect sustained work.

Reilly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-05(a)

It is well-settled that when making an RFC assessment, an ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence, including medical opinions and facts, claimant’s physical and mental abilities, non-severe impairments, and subjective evidence of symptoms that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)-(e).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s own observations about physical limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Labreche v. SSA · filed 2020-11-09(a)(3)

In addition, the ALJ was permitted to consider non-medical evidence, such as the Plaintiff’s own observations about his physical condition.

Residual functional capacity is assessed using all record evidence, including nonmedical evidence.

McLean v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-11-12(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.”

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

Carlos v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-13(a)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(2), 404.1527. ... The ALJ provided germane reasons for discounting NP Sarabia’s opinion in her finding of Plaintiff’s RFC. There is no reversible error.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s remaining ability to work using all relevant medical and other evidence.

Payne v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-11-19(a)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ “must consider all relevant medical and other evidence.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ relied upon “such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support [her] conclusion.” Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239.

An RFC reassessment must account for medical opinions and the claimant’s statements about how impairments affect functioning.

JONES v. SAUL · filed 2020-11-24

On remand and with the assistance of expert medical review of the record, the Commissioner must reassess whether a listing is met or medically equaled and, if not, an appropriate RFC, taking into account Dr. Fretwell's opinions (and the weight they deserve) and Bobbi's statements about the effects of her impairments on her functioning.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant record evidence when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Sharbrough v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-30(a)

An ALJ considers all relevant evidence in the record when making this determination. Id. ... The ALJ's hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert was the same as the ALJ's RFC determination, which in turn was based upon the ALJ's evaluation of Petitioner’s subjective symptom testimony, the objective medical evidence, and the opinions of Dr. Brown, who reviewed the medical evidence and provided opinions regarding Petitioner’s limitations.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including symptoms reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.

Dalka v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-30(a)(3)

The determination of a claimant’s RFC is an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner that is based on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including medical opinion evidence, medical records, lay evidence, and “the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.”

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including the effects of symptoms reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.

Ricci v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-30(a)(3)

The ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record in deciding the RFC, including “the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.” Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence, including medical records, treating physicians’ observations, and the claimant’s description of limitations.

Frederick v. Saul · filed 2020-11-30(a)

The ALJ bears the primary responsibility for assessing a claimant’s RFC based on all relevant evidence in the record, including medical records, the observations of treating physicians and others, and the claimant’s own description of his symptoms and limitations. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 793 (8th Cir. 2005); Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... Because substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s formulation of Marsha’s RFC, the Court will remand this determination for further proceedings.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from all the evidence; the finding need not match any single medical opinion.

Ferrell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-05(a)

Third, it is the ALJ’s duty to formulate the RFC based on all the evidence of record and it need not identically match any particular medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); Coldiron v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F. App’x 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2010) (“The Social Security Act instructs that the ALJ—not a physician—ultimately determines a Plaintiff’s RFC.”).

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

Rodola v. Saul · filed 2020-11-06(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.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider medical source statements and other record evidence when determining residual functional capacity.

Groves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-06(a)(3)

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)(3), 404.1546(c).

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

KUHL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-11-06(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most that the claimant can do despite the claimant’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.(a)(1).

Residual functional capacity assesses what a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations.

Fogle v. Saul · filed 2020-11-10(a)

The RFC is defined as what the claimant can do despite his or her limitations, and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not err in formulating the RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a) calls for an RFC assessment based on the evidence as a whole; the ALJ may reject opinion limitations that are inconsistent with that evidence.

Durham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-10(a)

Given that it is the ALJ’s job to formulate an RFC based on the evidence as a whole and to reject elements that are inconsistent, there was no error here.

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

(SS) Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-13(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)(3) directs the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; carrying out that duty does not amount to rendering a medical opinion.

Labine v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-16(a)(3)

This argument is without merit as the Commissioner’s regulations specifically direct the ALJ to “assess [a claimant's] residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3), and to evaluate medical opinion evidence according to certain factors, which include the degree of support the opinion has from objective medical evidence, id. § 404.1527(c)(3), as well as its consistency with the record as a whole, id. § 404.1527(c)(4). The discharge of these regulatory duties is not tantamount to rendering a medical opinion.

An RFC must account for all functional limitations supported by the evidence.

Cornellier v. Saul · filed 2020-11-17(a)(3)

The ALJ’s determination of Cornellier’s limitations was supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ properly incorporated these limitations into an RFC that accounted for all such functional limitations.

Residual functional capacity represents the most a claimant can still do despite limitations caused by physical and mental impairments.

Alcorn v. Saul · filed 2020-11-24(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is intended to represent the most that a claimant can still do despite the limitations caused by her physical and mental impairments.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence, including severe and non-severe impairments and medical and non-medical evidence.

McBeth v. Saul · filed 2020-11-30(a), (e)

Instead, the ALJ appears to have overlooked a line of evidence that required analysis and evaluation in order to properly determine Plaintiff’s RFC. The ALJ is required to assess a claimant’s RFC “based on all the relevant evidence” in the record, including severe and non-severe impairments as well as medical and non-medical evidence. § 404.1545(a), (e).

An RFC assessment may rely in part on a nonexamining physician’s opinion when the record as a whole supports the assessed limitations.

Allport v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-30

The ALJ’s RFC is based on the record as a whole, not simply the opinion of non-examining Dr. Moore. The ALJ accounted for Plaintiff’s spinal abnormalities by including significant limitations in the RFC. Moreover, the ALJ assessed greater limitations than Dr. Moore opined, given the record evidence. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in relying on the opinion of Dr. Moore in formulating the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from the record as a whole.

Coffman, Jr. v. Saul · filed 2020-11-30(a)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ fulfilled her duty, which was to consider the record as a whole and determine Plaintiff’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a) and 416.945(a).

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant medical and nonmedical evidence in the record.

Woodrow v. Saul · filed 2020-11-10(a)(1)

The RFC assessment is based on all of the relevant medical and nonmedical evidence in the record. ... The ALJ’s narrative provided a detailed discussion of Plaintiff’s subjective statements, numerous treatment records, records from consultative examinations, and opinions from non-examining state agency medical consultants.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions.

Vazquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-12(a)(3)

The ALJ adequately considered the medical opinions of record regarding Plaintiff’s mental condition and substantial evidence supports his mental RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider the whole record, including the claimant’s testimony and medical-source opinions, when determining residual functional capacity.

Hutchins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-30(a)

In determining the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ is required to consider the record as a whole, including the claimant’s testimony and opinions from the claimant’s medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) directs the ALJ to consider medical source statements and all other record evidence when determining residual functional capacity.

Neumann v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-15(a)(3)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers medical source statements and all other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider the full record, including nonsevere impairments and functional limitations, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Twigg v. Saul · filed 2020-12-22(a)

In determining RFC specifically, an ALJ must consider the entire record, opinion evidence, impairments that are not severe, and any limitations the ALJ finds. ... The VE’s testimony in conjunction with the evidence of record sufficiently supports the ALJ’s RFC. Thus, the ALJ’s assessment adequately accounted for Plaintiff's moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, and pace and is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Buccitelli v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-04(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.

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant evidence, including how an impairment could cause time off task or missed work.

Richie v. Saul · filed 2020-12-09(a)(1)

The determination of an individual’s RFC should be based on all relevant evidence in the record. Murphy v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 811, 817 (7th Cir. 2014); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 (July 2, 1996) (“The RFC assessment must be based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Notably absent from the ALJ’s decision is a discussion of how Donte’s seizures would affect his ability to work in terms of time off-task or days he would miss from work.

An RFC determination must consider all relevant evidence, including evidence of severe and non-severe impairments.

Kurutza v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-16(a)(1)-(2)

An RFC determination represents “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations[,|” and is determined based on “all the relevant evidence” in the record, including evidence of both severe and non-severe medically determinable impairments.

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

Shafor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-23(a)(3)

The ALJ is responsible for assessing a claimant’s RFC based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider medical evidence and the claimant’s subjective symptoms and limitations.

Siver v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-11

In rendering an RFC determination, the ALJ must consider objective medical facts, diagnoses, and medical opinions based on such facts, as well as a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms, including pain and descriptions of other limitations.

An RFC assessment draws on medical evidence and other evidence, including testimony from the claimant and people who know the claimant.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-13(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.”

An ALJ must consider all impairments and base residual functional capacity on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-26(a)

An ALJ must consider all impairments, and the RFC must be based on all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... The Court finds the ALJ fulfilled his duty to weigh the conflicting evidence in determining Plaintiff’s RFC, and his decision that the record supported an ability to perform frequent reaching, handling, and fingering is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence, including medical records, medical source opinions, and the claimant’s account of limitations.

VAZQUEZ v. SAUL · filed 2021-01-27(a)(3)

The assessment must be based upon all of the relevant evidence, including the medical records, medical source opinions, and the individual’s subjective allegations and description of his/her own limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant evidence, including medical records, medical opinions, and the claimant’s descriptions of limitations.

ZAMORA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-01-28(a)(3)

The assessment must be based upon all the relevant evidence, including medical records, medical source opinions, and the individual’s subjective allegations and descriptions of his or her own limitations. ... Contrary to Zamora’s contention, the ALJ considered the combination of Zamora’s impairments in assessing her RFC, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including evidence of a claimant’s need for a cane.

Evans-Williams v. Saul · filed 2021-02-01(a)

An ALJ makes an RFC assessment based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The ALJ’s failure to include her cane usage in plaintiff's RFC was clear error.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence in the record, including medical opinions.

Clark v. Commisioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-13

The ALJ appropriately considered Dr. Forman’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s ability to withstand the stress of an eight-hour workday and work four to eight hours, and generally incorporated Dr. Forman’s other findings into Plaintiff’s RFC.

An RFC assessment is based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, medical source statements, and symptom testimony.

Centera v. Saul · filed 2021-01-14(a)(1)

An RFC assessment is the most a plaintiff can do despite their limitations, and this assessment is based upon all relevant evidence in the record including medical records, medical source statements, and symptom testimony.

Residual functional capacity is determined from all relevant evidence in the record, including relevant medical and other evidence.

Rourke v. Saul · filed 2021-01-14(a)(1), (a)(3)

The RFC is determined “based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record[,]” including “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a)(1), (3).

An administrative law judge determines residual functional capacity by considering medical source statements and all other evidence in the case record.

Stewart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-25(a)(3)

The Administrative Law Judge makes this finding based on a consideration of medical source statements and all other evidence in the case record.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; medical opinions are one part of that evidence.

Magwood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-26(a)(1)

Medical opinion evidence is therefore just one subset of the type of evidence the ALJ must consider in reaching an RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) bases residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence of what a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations.

Gonzalez v. Sauls · filed 2021-01-29(a)(1)

The “RFC assessment is a determination of the most the claimant can still do despite his physical and mental limitations and is based on all relevant evidence in the claimant's record.” Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 462 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). In assessing Gonzalez’s RFC, the ALJ properly considered Gonzalez’s subjective complaints and symptoms, the objective medical record, and the medical opinions given by the state agency consultants in the record.

In assessing residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions.

Doughty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-29(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 requires the ALJ to assess the most work a claimant can do despite her impairments, considering all impairments and the medical evidence; the RFC need not match a consultative examiner’s limitations.

Henley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-01(a)(1), (a)(2), (e)

Although Plaintiff does not challenge her RFC determination directly, to the extent Plaintiff claims the ALJ erred because the RFC he formulated differs from the limitations Dr. Fontoura identified, this is meritless. A claimant’s RFC is the most work she can do despite any limitations caused by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). In formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all impairments and the extent to which the impairments are consistent with medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2),(e).

Section 404.1545(a) permits an RFC assessment supported by a review of the medical records, daily activities, and work history even when the ALJ does not expressly identify a stage of an impairment.

Morton v. Saul · filed 2021-01-29(a)

Although Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ did not expressly consider whether Plaintiff had stage 4 kidney disease, the Court finds the RFC determination was based on substantial evidence. Specifically, as discussed below, the ALJ properly conducted a complete and detailed analysis of Plaintiff’s medical records, activities of daily living, and work history.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant, credible evidence in the record.

Minor v. Saul · filed 2021-02-02(a)

The ALJ bears the primary responsibility for assessing a claimant’s RFC based on all relevant, credible evidence in the record, including medical records, the observations of treating physicians and others, and the claimant’s own description of his symptoms and limitations. ... The lack of visual acuity limitations in the RFC prior to May 1, 2018 is not supported by the record.

An ALJ assesses residual functional capacity using relevant medical and nonmedical evidence, including statements from medical sources about what a claimant can still do.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-08(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.

An RFC assessment must be based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

FAMULARO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-17(a)(3)

An ALJ’s RFC determination must be based on the medical evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (“We will assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”).

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

Seliverstova v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-18

An ALJ must assess RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.