20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

An RFC need not include a handheld assistive device when the evidence supports finding that the claimant has no medical need for it.

Spuhler v. Saul · filed 2022-08-01(a)(1)

Because the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have a medical need for a handheld assistive device, it was not necessary for the ALJ to include the use of such a device in the RFC.

An RFC assessment accounts for a claimant’s need for a cane when it addresses the use supported by the medical record.

Collins v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-05(a)

Second, the ALJ’s RFC assessment directly acknowledged and accounted for Plaintiff's need for a cane.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider whether the evidence supports an RFC limitation for using an assistive device to walk.

Salas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-27(a)(1)

The Court finds that the ALJ erred by failing to consider whether the RFC should include a limitation for using an assistive device to ambulate.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for a medically required cane as a work limitation.

Threats v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-27(a)(1)

If the use of a cane is medically required, then the ALJ must include that limitation in the RFC because “the cane is considered a limitation on a claimant’s ability to work.”

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the RFC assessment to consider medical evidence and opinions, including evidence of a claimant’s need for a cane.

Fragoza v. Saul · filed 2022-09-28(a)(3)

Among the evidence an ALJ relies on in an RFC assessment is medical evidence and opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Given that the ALJ found plaintiff could stand or walk for four hours in a workday, and did not include any requirement for use of a cane or other hand-held assistive device in her RFC assessment, this was not a harmless error.

An RFC assessment must properly address a claimant’s need for and use of a cane.

Grady v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-20(a)(1)

An individual’s residual functional capacity is their ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from their impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... Because the ALJ failed to properly address Plaintiff’s need for and use of a cane, remand is necessary.

An RFC assessment must consider evidence that a claimant needs an assistive device, and the ALJ must explain a decision to omit related walking or standing limits.

Lupher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-06(a)(1)

The ALJ’s brief statement on the lack of prescription for a cane does not accurately and logically connect the ample evidence in the record of Plaintiff’s use of an assistive device with his conclusion that it was not medically necessary.

An RFC assessment need not account for a cane when the record does not establish that it is medically necessary.

Mahone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-29(a)(1)

The RFC assessment “is the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Especially in light of Plaintiff’s appearing at multiple appointments without a cane and no medical evidence indicating that one is necessary, see generally Tr. at 327-478, the undersigned cannot say that the ALJ reversibly erred in assessing the RFC and in making the assistive device findings.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to address evidence of cane use and incorporate the cane if it is medically necessary.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-01(a)

Irrespective of the reason for the ALJ’s failure to address plaintiff’s cane in his decision, for the reasons discussed above, the references in the record to plaintiff’s use of a cane were sufficient to require the ALJ to determine whether plaintiff’s cane was medically necessary, including developing the record if necessary. On remand, the ALJ should properly evaluate whether plaintiff’s use of a cane is medically necessary and, if it is, to incorporate plaintiff’s use of a cane into his RFC.

A claimant’s use of a cane does not by itself preclude a light-work RFC when the RFC accounts for that use.

Boyd v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-21(a)

Thus, the ALJ’s finding of an RFC of light work is not an err just because Plaintiff requires the use of a cane for ambulation, especially given that the ALJ included a specific limitation in the RFC for Plaintiff’s cane usage and asked the VE to consider this limitation in her assessment.

An ALJ who finds a prescribed assistive device medically unnecessary must explain why it is excluded from the residual functional capacity assessment.

Overton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-20(a)(1)

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, if a claimant has been prescribed an assistive device, and the ALJ determines that the assistive device is not medically necessary, then the ALJ must explain her reasons for excluding the prescription from the RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant medical and other evidence; a cane limitation requires medical documentation establishing its necessity.

Velasquez v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-27(a)(3)

The ALJ must assess a claimant's RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... Here, Plaintiff has not established that the cane was medically required because he does not identify a doctor that prescribed a cane nor a medical record “describing the circumstances for which it is needed.”

An RFC must include a limitation for a hand-held assistive device only if the device is medically required.

Thompson v. King · filed 2025-02-20(a)(1)

An RFC must include a limitation about the need for a hand-held assistive device, such as a cane or walker, only if the device is medically required.

An RFC assessment need not account for a cane or wheelchair when the evidence does not show that the device is medically necessary.

Winter v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-25(a)(3)

Because the evidence in the record fails to demonstrate the cane or wheelchair was medically necessary, the ALJ was not required to account for Plaintiff’s use of assistive devices in their RFC determination.

A residual functional capacity assessment must consider a claimant’s medically necessary cane use.

Lopez · filed 2026-01-16(a)(1)

Accordingly, the Court concludes the ALJ erred by: (1) failing to assess Mr. L.’s medically necessary cane; (2) improperly assessing Mr. L.’s mental impairment at step two; (3) improperly assessing Mr. L.’s symptom testimony; (4) improperly assessing the medical opinion evidence.

An RFC describes the most a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations; a cane restriction for walking need not extend to standing without supporting evidence.

Irwin · filed 2026-01-27(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most activity in which he can engage in a work setting despite the physical and mental limitations that arise from her impairments and related symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Here, the ALJ reviewed the record as a whole and concluded that the plaintiff needed a cane for walking but not standing. The ALJ’s conclusion is consistent with Dr. Ehman’s opinion.

An RFC assessment must evaluate a claimant’s need for a wheelchair or walker and account for resulting limitations when appropriate.

Rugg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31

Residual functional capacity (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. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945. ... On remand, the Commissioner should address the extent to which plaintiff needed a wheelchair or walker to ambulate and, if appropriate, make adjustments to plaintiff’s residual functional capacity consistent with that re-evaluation.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for what a claimant can do despite functional limitations; an unexplained finding that a claimant can carry 20 pounds while climbing stairs with a cane lacks substantial evidence.

Luginbuhl v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30

For the same reason, the Court concludes that the RFC determination here is not supported by substantial evidence (i.e., the ALJ has failed to address how plaintiff, a person with COPD and asthma, can climb stairs, with a cane, carrying 20 pounds).

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations; the assessment must address supported limitations or explain their exclusion.

Eubanks · filed 2026-03-31(a)(1)

The RFC is a measure of “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2. ... It was error for the ALJ to fail to address these and other documented limitations to which Plaintiff testified without explaining the reasoning for excluding them from the RFC.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider functional limitations in a persuasive medical opinion and either include them or explain their exclusion.

Capelton · filed 2026-03-30

On remand the ALJ should consider all the functional limitations in Dr. Weiss’ opinion and should either incorporate those limitations into the RFC or explain why an excluded limitation was not adopted.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) bases an RFC assessment on all relevant evidence; the ALJ need not include alleged limitations that the record supports rejecting.

TORTORA-KULIGOSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-07-25(a)(1)

The ALJ did not find Plaintiff’s mental limitations to be as debilitating as she alleged, or as disabling as Dr. Raklyar and LCSW Keane opined, and there is ample support for this finding in the record. Therefore, he did not need to include Plaintiff’s additional alleged limitations in the RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to address the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations, including manipulative and postural functions.

Stanford v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-01(b)

This includes a discussion of the “nature and extent of” a claimant’s physical limitations including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping, or crouching).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b). ... Here, the evidence in the record does not reflect further limitations, and the ALJ clearly considered all the evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to identify a claimant’s functional limitations and assess work-related abilities function by function; an RFC that omits limitations from a credited medical opinion is erroneous without an explanation.

Rogel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-19

At step four, the ALJ must identify the claimant’s functional limitations or restrictions, and assess the claimant’s work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis, including a required narrative discussion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... The ALJ’s description of Dr. Shaw’s opinion misstates the extent of the limitations he described, and the RFC does not account for the indefinite limitations he placed on Plaintiff’s ability to work. Because Dr. Shaw’s opinion is inconsistent with the RFC and the ALJ failed to provide any reason to discount it, the Court finds error in the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Shaw’s opinion.

Residual functional capacity assesses what a claimant can do despite impairments, using evidence of the claimant’s functional limitations.

Gora v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-17(a)(1)

The RFC is an assessment of a claimant’s ability to do work despite her impairments. ... The ALJ should have provided a better explanation on this issue and as to why he rejected Gora’s statements regarding her functional abilities with her hands.

Section 404.1545 requires the RFC to include social limitations supported by the record.

Prince v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-11

If such a finding is supported by the record, then the ALJ must include an appropriate social limitation in the RFC determination and in the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert.

An RFC assessment need not include limitations unsupported by objective medical evidence or based on properly discounted symptom allegations.

Mosaquites v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-16(a)

There was no requirement that the RFC assessment include limitations unsubstantiated by objective medical evidence or based on subjective symptom allegations that were properly discounted.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to explain how a claimant’s mental limitations affect her ability to perform work tasks for a full workday.

Gose v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-16

The ALJ’s RFC was insufficient because it failed to include an explicit conclusion about how Plaintiff’s mental limitations affect her ability to perform job-related tasks for a full workday.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to reflect supported functional limitations, but it need not include limitations the ALJ properly rejected.

Ryan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-14

The Court, finally, finds no error in the RFC limitation challenged by plaintiff. An RFC assessment need not account for limitations or impairments the ALJ properly rejected.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC to reflect the most a claimant can do despite his limitations.

Barker v. Saul · filed 2019-11-19(a)(1)

Because the RFC does not clearly include limitations associated with Plaintiff’s neck, the RFC does not accurately depict the most Plaintiff is able to do.

An RFC limiting a claimant to simple, routine tasks can account for mild to moderate mental limitations.

Rodusky v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-21(a)(1)

The ALJ properly translated Dr. Zhang’s and Dr. Friedland’s mild to moderate mental limitations into an RFC for simple, routine tasks.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must address opined functional limitations and explain why a limitation is omitted.

Devito v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-25(a)

However, the ALJ’s analysis of this and the other opinion evidence does not otherwise discuss the opined limitations related to turning the head or why they were not included in the RFC.

An RFC may omit a reaching limitation when medical evidence and the claimant’s reported activities substantially support that decision.

Laba v. Saul · filed 2019-11-08

Taken together, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence from various medical sources and Plaintiff’s own reports of her daily activities to support the ALJ’s decision to exclude reaching limitations from the RFC.

Section 404.1545(e) requires an RFC assessment to consider the limiting effects of a claimant’s impairments; alleged symptoms unlinked to a clinical impairment may be omitted.

Runions v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-11(e)

As such, the ALJ properly omitted those alleged symptoms from the RFC assessment, because they were not linked to a clinical impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e) (indicating that an ALJ’s RFC assessment must consider the limiting effects of Plaintiff’s impairments).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to address significant evidence that a claimant needs a companion animal when assessing residual functional capacity.

Anderson v. Saul · filed 2019-09-27

The Court finds Mr. A. met his burden to place his need for his companion animal at issue, and the ALJ erred when she failed to explain her reasoning and conclusion as to his need for his companion dog.

Residual functional capacity assesses the conditions a claimant needs to work, not the conditions under which the claimant would work best.

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

Thus, the RFC only needed to assess the necessary conditions for Plaintiff to work—not his optimal work environment that would give him the greatest chance for success.

An ALJ may account for range-of-motion deficits through postural and reaching limits when the evidence supports those limits and identifies no further restrictions.

McMillan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-03(a)(3)

Dr. Bacchus did not suggest any limitations beyond those addressed in the RFC to account for range of motion deficits, and the Court does not think it unreasonable for the ALJ to have accounted for the range of motion deficits by limiting Plaintiff to occasional bending, pushing, pulling, and reaching, in addition to permitting her to otherwise change her posture.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; the ALJ need include only credible limitations supported by substantial evidence.

Stevenson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-09(a)(1)

The RFC is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite his limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). In making this finding, the ALJ need only include credible limitations supported by substantial evidence. ... The ALJ therefore properly excluded limitations assessed by those providers from the RFC and hypothetical to the vocational expert.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; an ALJ need not address limitations that do not interfere with the claimant’s ability to function.

Barksdale v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-15(a)(1)

Because the RFC “is the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), the ALJ was not required to address limitations that did not interfere with Barksdale’s “ability to function” when determining his RFC.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do despite impairments, regardless of the demands of past jobs.

(SS) Massimo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-19(a)

Residual functional capacity is a measure of the most a Plaintiff can do despite her impairments, not what her past work entailed.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite limitations; an ALJ needs sufficient explanation to assign a standing limit that departs from the medical opinions.

Betten v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-20(a)

A social security claimant’s residual functional capacity is “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... None of the medical opinions in this record support a six-hour standing limitation, and the ALJ did not provide sufficient explanation to deviate from the multiple reports that recommended a two- or four-hour limit.

An RFC assessment must consider how treatment affects a claimant’s ability to stay on task and work, and explain any resulting limitation.

Speight v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-05(a)(3)

Because the ALJ failed to explain in the RFC findings what impact, if any, Plaintiff’s nebulizer use would have on her ability to remain “on or off task,” as well as the impact on her ability to be employed, remand is warranted.

Residual functional capacity describes what a person can still do despite limitations; the assessment must address work-related abilities, though an explicit function-by-function analysis is not always required.

Baker v. Saul · filed 2019-08-06(a)

A RFC is what a person can still do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). An ALJ’s RFC assessment must “identify the individual’s functional limitations or restrictions and assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis, including the functions listed in the regulations.” Mascio, 780 F.3d at 636 (quotations omitted). The Fourth Circuit has “rejected a per se rule requiring remand when the ALJ does not perform an explicit function-by-function analysis.” Id. ... The RFC in the instant case is both adequately explained and supported by substantial evidence. (See Tr. 27–29).

Residual functional capacity describes what a claimant can still do despite limitations; conflicting findings about that capacity require clarification.

Belton v. Schweiker · filed 1982-04-07

The first concern with the AU’s findings of fact focuses on the inconsistency between Finding # 4 and Finding # 6, both of which address the plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, or what she can do despite her limitations. ... However, the inconsistency between Findings 4 and 6 here creates a need for clarification. ... This inconsistency in the findings of fact demands further attention on remand.

Section 404.1545 requires a finding about a claimant’s residual functional capacity, including whether the claimant’s limitations prevent any work.

Queenan v. Heckler · filed 1984-03-08

It is clear from the AU’s questioning of the vocational expert at the June 30 hearing that, after making the findings required by § 404.1520, he found Mrs. Queenan’s residual functional capacity so limited as to render her totally disabled. This is the required finding under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, which the AU lists as one of the statutory bases for his decision.

Section 404.1545 requires residual functional capacity to be assessed medically as part of an individualized evaluation of the claimant’s ability to work.

Cabral v. Heckler · filed 1984-10-01

Residual functional capacity is a medical assessment. ... The Social Security Act and its regulations require the Secretary to make a realistic, individual assessment of each claimant’s ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity by what a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations and requires consideration of all those limitations.

Barbarine CARRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defend · filed 1985-01-17(a)

The Secretary defines residual functional capacity as “what [the claimant] can still do despite [her physical and mental] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). It is a medical assessment to which all of claimant’s limitations are relevant, even those that do not constitute symptoms crucial to diagnosis and treatment.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the Secretary to consider all of a claimant’s impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Cleaver v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1988-02-29(a)

It is a medical assessment, but the Secretary may also rely upon the claimant’s own statements of his or her limitations, and information from other sources, in evaluating this issue. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (1981). The Secretary must consider all of the claimant’s impairments in determining residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1545(a) treats residual functional capacity as an assessment of what a claimant can still do despite limitations, separate from vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience.

Marcus v. Bowen · filed 1988-09-22(a)

While the RFC assessment measures functional capacities in a vocational setting, it is a medical appraisal and must be distinguished from evaluation under statutory vocational factors such as the claimant’s age, education, and work experience.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations; it measures the work the claimant can perform.

Hudson v. Sullivan · filed 1989-05-31(a)

Residual functional capacity is defined as “what you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). It is used to determine the type of work a claimant can do despite his or her impairments.

Section 404.1545(a) assesses what a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations.

Anderson v. Sullivan · filed 1989-11-21(a)

While the plaintiff argues that the AU erred in relying on physical abilities in determining his limitations in daily living, the pertinent regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a), does not state that residual functional capacity need be determined on that limited basis. The regulations recognize that, while impairments may be both physical and mental, residual functional capacity concerns what a claimant can do despite these limitations.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations; it is considered with work and vocational factors, not by itself.

Carty v. Sullivan · filed 1990-04-27

Residual functional capacity is defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 as “what you can still do despite your limitations.” ... In other words, residual functional capacity cannot be considered in a vacuum. It must be considered along with the demand of the claimant’s past relevant work in step four, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), or with age, education, and past work as a part of the step five determination of the claimant’s ability to do other work.

An RFC finding requires a complete assessment of the claimant’s functional limits, including the ability to sit, stand, and carry.

Gathright v. Shalala · filed 1993-07-22

Neither Dr. Kassicieh nor Dr. Davis determined how long Plaintiff can sit or stand, or how much weight Plaintiff can carry. Furthermore, Plaintiff complained to Dr. Davis of knee joint pain caused by bilateral osteoarthritis and told Dr. Davis how his pain medication did not help. Tr. 109. Under those circumstances, I find that Riveras-Torres applies and the ALJ erred when he did not ask Dr. Davis to make a complete RFC assessment.

Residual functional capacity describes what a claimant can still do despite limitations and may account for the claimant’s description of those limitations.

Kelly v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1994-12-08(a)

The term “residual functional capacity” means “what [a claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). It is a medical assessment, although it properly includes a description (even a claimant’s own) of limitations that go beyond the symptoms that may be important in the diagnosis and treatment of the claimant’s medical condition.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations.

Scott v. Shalala · filed 1995-02-24

The residual.funetional capacity is the level of work that the claimant is able to physically perform on a sustained basis. It is defined as “what you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... The reports of these consultative doctors simply do not provide substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff can perform a full range of light work.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations and allows consideration of the claimant’s own description of those limitations.

Bosley v. Shalala · filed 1995-03-09(a)

The term “residual functional capacity” means “what [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). It is a medical assessment, although it properly includes a description (even a claimant’s own) of limitations that go beyond the symptoms that may be important in the diagnosis and treatment of the claimant’s medical condition.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess what tasks a claimant can perform despite physical or mental limitations.

Mandziej v. SSA · filed 1996-09-24

In determining a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider tasks that can be performed despite a claimant's physical or mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider what tasks a claimant can perform despite physical or mental limitations when determining residual functional capacity.

Mandziej v. Chater · filed 1996-09-24

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider tasks that can be performed despite a claimant’s physical or mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545's assessment requirements are satisfied when the ALJ makes the necessary findings, even without completing the required assessment form.

Suing v. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1997-12-08

Although the ALJ did not complete the required assessment form, the district court correctly found that the ALJ made the necessary findings to satisfy the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to identify the functions a claimant can perform; conclusory statements about capacity are insufficient.

Dwyer v. Apfel · filed 1998-10-19

In assessing RFC, the ALJ’s findings must specify the functions plaintiff is capable of performing; conclusory statements regarding plaintiffs capacities are not sufficient. ... The ALJ did not provide a precise description of plaintiffs past work duties which likely caused her anxiety, nor did he specify functions which the plaintiff is still capable of performing.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to specify the functions a claimant can still perform; a conclusory description of work capacity is insufficient.

Smith v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-19(a)

In assessing RFC, the ALJ’s findings must specify the functions plaintiff is capable of performing; conclusory statements regarding plaintiffs capacities are not sufficient. ... The ALJ did not provide a precise description of plaintiffs past work duties which likely caused him stress or tension, nor did he specify the functions which the plaintiff is still capable of performing, or describe with some specificity jobs that claimant can do despite his impairments.

The ALJ, rather than the claimant’s physician, determines residual functional capacity.

Vertigan v. William A. Halter, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2001-08-10

It is clear that it is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the claimant’s physician, to determine residual functional capacity.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do after accounting for physical and mental limitations affecting work-related activities.

Hert v. Barnhart · filed 2002-12-13

An individual’s RFC is defined as the most that individual can do after considering the effects of physical and mental limitations that affect her ability to perform work-related activities. 20 CFR § 404.1545.

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

Johnson v. Comm Social Security · filed 2003-01-29(a)

Residual functional capacity (RFC) is defined as what a claimant can do despite her limitations.

An ALJ may limit a claimant’s residual functional capacity to impairments and limitations found credible after evaluating the entire record.

McGeorge v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-11(a)

The ALJ properly limited his RFC determination to only the impairments and limitations he found to be credible based on his evaluation of the entire record.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite limitations; medical opinions and examination findings can support an assessment that the claimant can perform light work.

Nkrumah v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-03-24(a)

Residual functional capacity (RFC) is defined as what a claimant can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... These determinations constitute substantial evidence that Nkrumah can perform light work.

Residual functional capacity is an administrative assessment, not a medical assessment.

Avalos v. Barnhart · filed 2003-10-16(a)

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument in her brief, see Aplt. Opening Br. at 15, the RFC is not a medical assessment, but rather an administrative one. See SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a) and 404.1546.

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

Harris v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-30(a)(1)

At the fourth step of the five-step process, the ALJ was required to assess the claimant's residual functional capacity, see Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1069 n.5 (8th Cir. 2000), which is defined as what a claimant "can still do despite [his or her] limitations." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... We conclude that the RFC determined by the ALJ was supported by substantial evidence.

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

Harris v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2004-01-30(a)(1)

At the fourth step of the five-step process, the ALJ was required to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity, see Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1069 n. 5 (8th Cir.2000), which is defined as what a claimant “can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” ... We conclude that the RFC determined by the ALJ was supported by substantial evidence.

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

Stone v. Barnhart · filed 2004-04-27(a)(1)

“Residual functional capacity” is defined as “the most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Taking these limitations into consideration, the ALJ made his RFC determination. The court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires a function-by-function assessment of residual functional capacity before the ALJ states an exertional level; missing findings on material abilities can require remand.

Jesse v. Barnhart · filed 2004-06-30(b), (c), and (d)

The ALJ did not properly consider plaintiffs abilities in a function-by-function analysis before stating the exertional level at which he believed plaintiff could perform. ... Consequently the ALJ’s RFC analysis is not supported by substantial evidence and must be remanded for a proper RFC determination before deciding whether plaintiff is disabled at steps four or five.

An RFC finding must include functional limitations from a medical opinion the ALJ credits.

Alley v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-23(a)

The record reflects that the ALJ’s hypothetical question did not include push/pull limitations with upper extremities and the RFC finding does not include the limitations she credited. Accordingly, remand on this issue appropriate.

Residual functional capacity describes the work-related functions a claimant can still perform despite impairments, and an RFC assessment must be supported by substantial evidence.

Aldridge v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-14(a)

A claimant’s RFC describes what work-related functions the claimant can still perform despite his impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... In light of ALJ Miller’s binding decision that Mr. Aldridge was limited to sedentary work through February 25, 2004, and in light of the lack of substantial evidence to support a conclusion that Mr. Aldridge’s condition had improved to a degree that would allow him to perform light work beginning on August 1, 2005, ALJ Marrero’s RFC calculation cannot stand.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to reflect the claimant’s ability to work in light of the relevant evidence and credited functional limitations.

Perkins v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2014-01-22(a)(1)

The ALJ’s RFC thus adequately accounted for the state agency functional assessments to the degree they were credited.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do despite the limiting effects of her impairments, including supported work limitations.

Dotzauer v. Colvin · filed 2014-06-10(a)(1)

An RFC is the most an individual can do in a work setting despite the total limiting effects of all his or her impairments. ... It is clear that the ALJ would be required to find plaintiff disabled if all her limitations were incorporated in her RFC.

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

Snay v. SSA · filed 2014-06-12(a)

A residual functional capacity assessment determines the most an applicant for benefits can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... As is explained above, the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

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

Phaneuf v. SSA · filed 2014-06-24(a)(1)

A residual functional capacity assessment determines the most a person can do in a work setting despite his limitations caused by impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment and disability finding, the decision is affirmed.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ at steps four and five to assess the most a claimant can do despite her limitations.

Toland v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-05(a)

Steps 4 and 5 require the ALJ to determine a claimant’s RFC; again, this is the most the claimant can do despite her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) directs an ALJ to assess how impairments and related symptoms limit what a claimant can do at work.

Davison v. Colvin · filed 2014-12-22(a)(1)

In making the RFC assessment, an ALJ considers how an impairment, and any related symptoms, may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what a claimant can do in a work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Residual functional capacity measures the most a person can do in a work setting despite limitations caused by impairments.

Trumbull v. SSA · filed 2015-01-08(a)(1)

A residual functional capacity assessment determines the most a person can do in a work setting despite his limitations caused by impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Therefore, the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC to omit a manipulative limitation when the record does not link the impairment to a limitation in work-related activity.

Reynolds v. SSA · filed 2015-05-22

In short, there is no evidence in the record linking Reynolds’s carpal tunnel syndrome to any limitation in her ability to perform work-related activities. Thus, the ALJ did not err by formulating an RFC that did not include a manipulative limitation.

Residual functional capacity reflects what a claimant can do at work despite limitations from medically determinable impairments; an unsupported low-stress restriction need not be included.

Hohnberger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-10-29

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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... In short, the record does not support plaintiffs claim.

An RFC assessment must explain how the evidence supports its treatment of work-related limitations, including handling, fingering, and feeling.

Stockett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-10-26

Having reviewed the record, which documents rad-iculopathy, hand and finger numbness and pain, and problems with fine motor skills, such as dropping items and difficulty typing, and in light of the lack of explanation on the part of the ALJ, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determination not to assign any handling, fingering, or feeling limitations of any kind is not supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC finding need not include limitations supported only by testimony and medical opinions the ALJ properly discounted.

Karabajakyan v. Berryhill · filed 2017-10-18(a)

The ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons for discounting Karabajakyan’s symptom testimony and specific and legitimate reasons for giving limited weight to Dr. Mazmanyan’s opinion that Karabajakyan’s limitations exceeded those set out in the RFC. For this reason, the ALJ did not need to incorporate those limitations in the RFC finding or in the hypothetical questions posed to the VE. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005); Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2001).

An RFC must describe functional limitations with sufficient detail, but need not make a specific finding for every function listed in § 404.1545(b).

Pixler v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-07(b)

Thus, while an RFC described only in “general terms” will warrant reversal, the ALJ “need not make specific findings in the RFC for every functional limitation included in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).” Johnston v. Colvin, 2016 WL 7104855, at *4 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 5, 2016).

An ALJ must explain an RFC finding sufficiently to show how the evidence supports the claimant’s assessed work abilities, including how conflicting restrictions were weighed.

Hofsommer v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-20(a)(1)

Here, we cannot conclude that the ALJ adequately explained his RFC determination. ... Assuming that the portion of Dr. Bassora's opinion stating that Hofsommer could not push, pull, lift, or carry was also given "some weight," then the ALJ should have explained why such restrictions did not further impede Hofsommer's ability to perform light work. On the other hand, if the ALJ provided little or no weight to these restrictions, then the ALJ should have explained his reason for doing so.

An ALJ may calculate residual functional capacity using limitations the ALJ finds credible.

HEARN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-06-27

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that ALJ Alvarado calculated Plaintiff’s RFC based on those limitations that he found to be credible, and properly relied on VE Meola’s testimony in concluding that Plaintiff was able to return to her past work or find new work.

Residual functional capacity must be evaluated at steps four and five to determine which work activities a claimant can perform despite their limitations.

Cannon v. Saul · filed 2019-07-26

At the fourth and fifth steps of the inquiry, the ALJ is required to evaluate the claimant’s RFC in calculating which work-related activities she is capable of performing given his limitations.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider relevant limitations and adequately explain why identified limitations are excluded.

WALLACE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-11(a)(1)

Not only must an ALJ consider all relevant evidence in determining an individual’s RFC, the RFC finding “must ‘be accompanied by a clear and satisfactory explication of the basis on which it rests.’” Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 41 (quoting Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir. 1981)). ... Remand is therefore required to allow for more focused discussion regarding the ALJ’s rationale for rejecting the limitations found by these medical professionals and for finding that social functioning limitations did not need to be included in Plaintiff’s RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do on a sustained basis despite impairments; an RFC finding requires an articulated evidentiary foundation.

Ramos v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-27

An individual’s residual functional capacity reflects the most an individual can do in terms of physical and mental work, on a sustained basis, despite limitations from his impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... The ALJ committed legal error in arriving at his RFC determination without citing to any medical evidence.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite limitations; a broader reaching restriction need not be included when the record supports only a limit on overhead lifting.

Sullivan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-07(a)(1)

A claimant’s “residual functional capacity” is “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... Thus, the ALJ’s limitation of occasional overhead lifting is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The Court finds no error.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to account for limitations supported by a claimant’s symptom testimony when determining residual functional capacity.

Robinson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-22

In formulating the 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.” Id. ... Consequently, the ALJ also erred when he did not include in his RFC limitations that Plaintiff’s symptom testimony supported.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to include medically supported limitations in the residual functional capacity assessment regardless of their severity.

McDonough v. Saul · filed 2020-01-14

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider limitations supported by the medical record and, regardless of their level of severity, incorporate them into the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

An RFC assessment must explain the omission of a reaching limitation from a medical opinion the ALJ gave great weight when that omission affects the work the claimant can perform.

Baker v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-22(a)

The Court finds the ALJ failed to sufficiently “explain why the [medical source] opinion was not adopted” or why the ALJ omitted Dr. Montemayor’s opinion regarding the reach limitations.

An RFC assessment must incorporate all of a claimant’s limitations supported by the medical record.

Bolter v. Saul · filed 2020-02-04(a)(1)

As a general rule, both the ALJ’s RFC assessment and the hypothetical posed to the VE must incorporate all of the claimant’s limitations supported by the medical record.

An RFC finding need not include a proposed leg-elevation limitation when the record lacks objective support for it and the ALJ sufficiently explains its rejection.

HARRIS v. SAUL · filed 2020-02-13

Binkley H. has not presented any objective signs from the record that would support Dr. Cates-Lonberger’s opinion that Binkley H. would need to elevate his legs throughout the day. Based on the existing record at the time, the Court does not find any error with the ALJ’s rejection of this specific limitation. The ALJ’s written explanation was sufficient under these circumstances.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for limitations caused by a severe impairment and explain how those limitations are reflected in the RFC.

Benefield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-11

The Court is thus left to guess at why the ALJ deemed headaches to be a severe impairment, what limitations the ALJ believed that impairment caused, and how the RFC accounts for them. Without that logical bridge, the Court cannot find that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 does not require the agency to consider possible reasonable accommodations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Hoffman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-18

In sum, under Cleveland and SSR 00-01C, the Acting Commissioner is correct that remand on this basis is not warranted because the agency is not required to take the possibility of reasonable accommodation into account in adjudicating its disability claims.

An ALJ must explain how the evidence supports the limits in a claimant’s residual functional capacity, including limits on off-task time and production pace.

Unigarro v. Saul · filed 2020-04-10(a)

The ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s RFC is flawed because the ALJ: (1) failed to explain why Plaintiff would be off task for ten percent of an eight-hour workday; and (2) failed to provide an explanation of what he meant by the term “not at a production rate pace.”

An RFC assessment must have substantial evidence supporting its findings about a claimant’s functional limitations.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-01

In other words, there must be substantial evidence to support a finding of functional limitations or lack thereof.

An ALJ must include in the residual functional capacity all functional limitations the ALJ finds, but need not include limitations the ALJ rejects.

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

The ALJ must include all of the functional limitations he found in the RFC, not the limitations that he rejected.

An RFC assessment must consider the functional limitations caused by a condition, if any, but need not name the diagnosis.

Azpeitia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-11(a)(1)

Although the ALJ did not specifically reference Plaintiff’s gastroparesis, he only needed to consider the resultant functional limitations arising from the condition, if any, to formulate Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to account for a claimant’s limitations, including moderate limitations, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Budnik v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-19

However, this does not resolve the ALJ’s duty to include all of Plaintiff’s opined limitations in the RFC and the hypothetical question posed to the Vocational Expert (“VE”), including moderate limitations.

An ALJ may omit a physician’s proposed functional limitation from the residual functional capacity assessment when treatment notes and medical records do not support it.

Smith v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-07(a)(3)

Thus, when a functional limitation is included in an MSS, but is “not reflected in any treatment notes or medical records,” the ALJ is right to disregard that limitation as conclusory and unsupported by the total record.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for limitations from a medically determinable impairment when the ALJ has not properly rejected the evidence supporting them.

Annette R. v. Saul · filed 2020-07-13(a)(1)

In turn, his failure to incorporate her claimed fibromyalgia limitations in determining her RFC was error.

Section 404.1545 treats residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; the ALJ includes limitations supported by credible medical evidence.

Meeks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-05(a)(1)

That is, the “RFC is not the least an individual can do despite his or her limitations or restrictions, but the most.” Id. at *1; see also Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1000-01 (7th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... When crafting the RFC, the ALJ need only include those limitations in the RFC “that [are] supported by the medical evidence and that the ALJ found to be credible.” McReynolds v. Berryhill, 341 F. Supp. 3d 869, 883 (7th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). ... The RFC assigned by the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence, and the Commissioner’s final decision will be affirmed.

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

Rochelle P. Brown v. Saul · filed 2020-08-11(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 requires an ALJ to account for a credited medical opinion’s attendance limitation in the RFC or explain its omission.

Stinson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-24

The ALJ failed to incorporate the attendance limitation into the RFC or explain how the limitations the RFC provided accounted for Dr. Breiholz opinion.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to account for supported limitations, including moderate limitations identified in medical opinions.

(SS) Cairns v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-08(a)

The ALJ’s RFC determination, however, does not account for all of Dr. Sunde’s opined moderate limitations.

An omitted supervisor-interaction limitation in an RFC is harmless when the jobs identified for the claimant require no more than occasional interaction with supervisors.

Whitehorne v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-27

In any event, any failure by the ALJ to include a specific limitation relating to Whitehorne’s ability to interact with supervisors in the RFC was harmless because the positions identified by the vocational expert do not require more than occasional interaction with supervisors.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) does not require an RFC to include a functional limitation that would not restrict the claimant’s work opportunities.

Suja v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-11(a)(1)

But the ALJ need not include a functional limitation in the RFC if it would not restrict Plaintiff from any work opportunities.

An RFC measures the most a claimant can do despite limitations; a moderate limitation found at Step Three does not automatically require a corresponding restriction in the RFC.

Loeckle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-14(a)(1)

Because an RFC represents the most a claimant can do despite his limitations, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1) (emphases added), the ALJ did not err by failing to include a specific work-related limitation for concentration, persistence or pace in the RFC or hypothetical question to the VE.

An RFC assessment requires an explanation when a four-hour standing or walking limit appears inconsistent with the ability to frequently lift or carry ten pounds.

Muma v. Social Security · filed 2020-09-28

That is because the Commissioner’s finding that Muma could only stand or walk for four hours appears incompatible with a finding that she could frequently lift or carry ten pounds. The Court agrees that the VE’s testimony was insufficient to show that Muma could perform a substantial number of jobs at the light exertional level because no explanation was provided as to how an individual would be able to carry or lift ten pounds frequently despite being unable to walk or stand frequently.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to explain how the evidence supports the specific limitations in a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

KENNEDY v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-28(a)(1)

As discussed, supra, substantial evidence must support the ALJ’s findings as to the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ must provide an adequate explanation as to how he formulated that RFC. Here, it is simply impossible to determine, upon review of the ALJ’s discussion of the evidence of record, how that evidence translated into the specific RFC findings that he made.

An RFC need include only functional limitations supported by substantial evidence.

Lewis v. Commissioner Social Security Administraiton · filed 2020-09-28

Although plaintiff provides an alternative interpretation of the evidence, the ALJ’s decision not to include additional lifting and carrying limitations to the RFC was supported by substantial evidence, and therefore must be upheld.

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant medical evidence and account for supported limitations in a claimant’s ability to work.

Moody v. Saul · filed 2020-11-02(a)(3)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” in the record, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c), and must consider all of the claimant’s “medically determinable impairments,” including those that are not severe. ... However, the RFC does not address the other moderate limitations Dr. Whelchel assessed, such as Plaintiff’s ability to relate to and interact with coworkers, associate with day-to-day work activity, maintain regular attendance in the workplace and perform work activities on a consistent basis, and perform work activities without special or additional supervision. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC is not supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC need not include a limitation for an impairment the claimant did not identify as limiting work and did not support with sufficient evidence.

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

Because Plaintiff neither listed a hand impairment as a condition limiting his ability to work nor provided sufficient evidence of such a condition, the Court finds the ALJ did not err by not incorporating a hand-related limitation in Plaintiff’s RFC.

An RFC assessment need not include additional limitations for obesity when the claimant provides no evidence that obesity limits work activities.

ORTIZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-11-30

She has not furnished any evidence—not one medical opinion—that her obesity caused any physical limitations. Nor has she set forth any evidence that her obesity contributed to her mental impairments. ... On this record, substantial evidence—more than a mere scintilla—supports the ALJ’s obesity assessment. Remand, therefore, is not warranted on this basis.

An omission from the written RFC finding does not require reversal when the vocational expert considered the omitted limitations and the omission did not affect the outcome.

Barnett v. Saul · filed 2021-03-31

Although the RFC finding understated Plaintiff’s mental limitations in these areas, the deficiency is without import, because the VE testified that even with the additional limitations asserted by Plaintiff, there would remain jobs available in the economy that Plaintiff could perform.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC assessment without an explicit finding on every possible nonexertional limitation when the record as a whole supports the assessment.

Wilbers v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-27

The ALJ did not need to make an explicit finding regarding every possible nonexertional limitation if the ALJ’s finding is supported by the record as a whole.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to reflect a claimant’s work-related abilities despite limitations; conflicting findings about prolonged standing and walking must be reconciled.

Fields v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-30(a)(1)

Fields’ argument that the ALJ failed to build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to her conclusions and that the RFC lacks substantial evidence is well-taken. The ALJ’s finding that Fields would have difficulty with prolonged standing and walking is inconsistent with the ALJ’s finding that Fields was capable of standing and walking for up to six hours in an eight-hour workday.

Residual functional capacity is used at step five to assess available work; when the assessment must be reconsidered, the step-five evaluation must be revisited.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20(a)(5)(ii)

The Court thus adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation to the extent that it remands to the ALJ for reevaluation at Step Five based on the reconsideration of the RFC in light of Dr. Magurno’s assessment.

An RFC assessment with unresolved, potentially outcome determinative contradictions about a claimant’s exertional capacity requires remand for clarification.

Neifert v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-03

In this case, since the difference between a residual functional capacity to perform either sedentary work or work at all exertional levels may determine the outcome of this case, and the ALJ’s assessment of Neifert’s residual functional capacity is marked by these internal inconsistencies, a remand of this case is required to clarify this question.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to explain an apparent conflict between the assessment of a medical opinion and the resulting residual functional capacity finding.

Fonseca-Alicea v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-28

Specifically, I find that the ALJ’s analysis of Dr. Ransom’s opinion appears inconsistent with his ultimate RFC findings. Without further explanation for the apparent discrepancy, remand is required.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC finding to account for supported limitations; an erroneous rejection of evidence about those limitations can make the finding insufficient.

Brown v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-11

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determination of the RFC is flawed insofar as it is based on an erroneous determination of Plaintiff's limitations. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ failed to issue a sufficient finding on Plaintiff's RFC.

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

Hughes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-13(a)(1)

Generally, a plaintiffs RFC is the most he can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... These limitations are consistent with the ALJ’s RFC determination that Plaintiff could perform sedentary work and, thus, not contrary to Dr. Lee’s opinion that Plaintiff had moderate limitations in prolonged sitting, standing, walking great distances, bending, and lifting.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to reflect the most a claimant can do in a work setting despite physical and mental limitations and related symptoms.

Mason v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-15(a)(1)

Here, it is the ALJ’s burden to ensure the RFC is the most Claimant can do. 20 CFR § 404.1545(a)(1) (an RFC assessment is “the most [a claimant] can do in a work setting,” considering “any related symptoms, such as pain” that an individual’s physical and mental limitations may cause in a work setting).

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

C.D.I. v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2024-05-29(a)(3)

We hold that the ALJ’s RFC determination at step five was not based on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3), and we therefore remand for the ALJ to consider whether C.D.I. possesses a residual functional capacity to perform other work in the national economy in light of all the relevant medical and other evidence, including the CFS diagnosis and other evidence relating to CFS.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to omit an absenteeism limitation from a claimant’s residual functional capacity when the record does not support it and the assessment is adequately explained.

Chyanne Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-30(a)(1)

Nor was the ALJ required to say any more to support its decision not to include a limitation relating to absenteeism. As the Administrative Appeals Judge, magistrate judge, and district court have all correctly observed, the ALJ in fact considered and rejected an absenteeism limitation because it did not believe that the record supported one.

An RFC assessment must explain how the evidence supports its conclusions sufficiently to permit meaningful judicial review.

Dichiara v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-27

The ALJ’s lack of analysis and narrative explanation in the RFC assessment does not allow for meaningful judicial review.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) assesses the conditions necessary for a claimant to work despite limitations; it does not require an optimal work setting.

MacDonald v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2024-08-12(a)(1)

Second, although the state agency psychological consultants opined that a “low stress work setting” would be the “best” work environment for Plaintiff, the RFC is an assessment of the minimum conditions necessary for a claimant to complete work despite his limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(5) makes residual functional capacity relevant to whether a claimant can perform past work or other work; a material mismatch between the RFC finding and the vocational expert hypothetical prevents meaningful review of that determination.

Forte v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-25(a)(5)

It is used at step four to determine whether a claimant can return to his or her past relevant work, and if necessary, it is also used at step five to determine whether the claimant can perform any other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(5), 416.945(a)(1). ... The undersigned concludes that judicial review is frustrated, and the matter must be reversed and remanded for clarification. This discrepancy between the RFC and the hypothetical to the VE is material to not only the question of Plaintiff’s actual RFC, but also to the question of whether Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work and to other issues raised by Plaintiff in this appeal.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC finding consistent with the record when the ALJ considers the medical evidence and appropriately analyzes the medical opinions; the finding need not match a particular opinion.

Rhodes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-16

As long as the ALJ considers all the medical evidence and appropriately analyzes the medical opinions, an RFC consistent with the record is not error. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945; see also Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 177 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that remand is not necessary “[w]here an ALJ’s analysis at Step Four regarding a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions affords an adequate basis for meaningful judicial review, applies the proper legal standards, and is supported by substantial evidence”).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to explain how the evidence supports a specific off-task limit in a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Speight · filed 2026-01-14

Like in Lee, the ALJ failed to explain how the evidence—evidence he concluded shows multiple moderate limitations—translates into a determination that Plaintiff would be off-task 15% of the time as opposed to any other percentage of time.

An RFC determination must explain how the evidence supports the claimant’s ability to work despite limitations sufficiently to permit meaningful judicial review.

Devan · filed 2026-02-20(a)(1)

A claimant's RFC represents “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The Court is persuaded that the ALJ’s RFC analysis does not build a logical bridge such that the Court can review how the RFC address Plaintiff’s limitations.

Section 404.1545(d) requires the Secretary to consider both exertional and nonexertional impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Cornella v. Schweiker · filed 1982-08-13(d)

The Secretary must consider both exertional and nonexer-tional impairments in deciding a claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires both exertional and nonexertional impairments to be considered when determining residual functional capacity.

Carpentier v. Sullivan · filed 1990-12-10

The regulations provide that if an individual suffers from a nonexertional impairment, as well as an exertional impairment, both are considered in determining residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of both exertional and non-exertional impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Vincent D. Knock, Jr. v. Louis M. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-01-10

The regulations provide that if an individual suffers from a non-exertional impairment, as well as an exertional impairment, both are considered in determining residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

For purposes of applying the medical-vocational guidelines, residual functional capacity describes a claimant’s ability to perform exertional tasks and does not account for nonexertional impairments.

Haynes v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-08-17(b)

However, it must be kept in mind that for purposes of applying the medical-vocational guidelines residual functional capacity is defined wholly in terms of a claimant’s physical ability to perform exertional tasks and does not take into account nonexertional impairments.

Section 404.1545 requires the agency to consider a claimant’s nonexertional impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Humphrey v. Heckler · filed 1984-09-04

First, the AU utterly failed to consider plaintiff’s substantial non-exertional impairments. Despite uncontradicted evidence of plaintiff’s severe back pain, muscle contraction headaches, and sociopathic personality, the AU bluntly concluded that plaintiff had no non-exertional limitations and that the “grid” was applicable. This conclusion flies in the face of the agency’s own regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945, as well as a long line of cases decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Section 404.1545(d) requires the ALJ to determine how nonexertional limitations, such as psychological impairments, affect a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

John M. ZALEWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, De · filed 1985-04-23(d)

The AU must then determine the effect of any nonexertional limitation such as a psychological impairment on the claimant’s residual functional capacity as previously determined pursuant to the grid. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(d), § 404.1569; 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, Appendix 2, § 200.00(a), (e)(2) (1984).

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of both exertional and nonexertional impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Whitt v. Secretary of Health & Human Services of the United States · filed 1988-02-05

The regulations provide that if an individual suffers from a nonexertional impairment, as well as an exertional impairment, both are considered in determining residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of both exertional and nonexertional impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Hayes v. Bowen · filed 1988-12-19

The AU correctly stated that “[t]he regulations ... provide that if an individual suffers from a nonexertional impairment as well as an exertional impairment, both are considered in determining residual functional capacity.” A.R. at 402 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545).

Section 404.1545 requires the Secretary to consider both exertional and nonexertional limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Brown v. Bowen · filed 1988-05-02

In making this determination, the Secretary is of course obliged to consider non-exertional as well as exertional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545 accounts for both exertional and non-exertional limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Jimenez v. Shalala · filed 1995-03-29

The regulations classify Jimenez’s impairments as both exertional (sit/stand, pain) and non-exertional (vision, pain and inability to follow instructions). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. Consequently, the grid, 20 C.F.R. Subpt P, App. 2, which indicates when an applicant is disabled based on exertional factors, do not strictly apply to Jimenez’ case.

Section 404.1545 requires both exertional and non-exertional impairments to be considered when determining residual functional capacity.

Brown v. Sullivan · filed 1990-05-14

The regulations provide that if an individual suffers from a non-exertional impairment, as well as an exertional impairment, both are considered in determining residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence and address the claimant’s exertional and non-exertional limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Hillman v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-20

The regulations require the ALJ to determine residual functional capacity by considering all of the relevant evidence and addressing the claimant’s exertional and non-exertional limitations. ... Because the ALJ considered all the relevant evidence and made the requisite findings, we find no error in his assessment.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence and to address exertional and non-exertional limitations.

Irby v. Barnhart · filed 2006-05-09

The regulations require the ALJ to determine residual functional capacity by considering all of the relevant evidence and addressing the claimant’s exertional and non-exertional limitations. ... Therefore, we find no error in the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence and address exertional and non-exertional limitations.

Ward v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-02

The ALJ considered all of the relevant evidence and addressed Ward’s exertional and non-exertional limitations, as required by the regulations.

Residual functional capacity must include nonexertional limitations caused by the claimant’s impairments.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-02-22(a)(1)

To the extent that the ALJ failed to include the nonexertional limitations resulting from Hall’s impairments in her residual functional capacity finding, we agree that the ALJ’s finding is lacking.

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of both exertional and nonexertional impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-07

The regulations also provide that if a claimant suffers from a nonexertional impairment as well as an exertional impairment, both are considered in determining her residual functional capacity.