20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence of a claimant’s limitations.

Horton v. Saul · filed 2020-05-19(a)(1)

“The reasons for rejecting evidence must be articulated if there is to be meaningful appellate review,” particularly because “[t]he RFC must be assessed based on all the relevant evidence in the record.” ... In light of the abundance of subjective and objective medical evidence relating to Plaintiffs hand impairments, the Court finds the ALJ’s failure to address Plaintiff's hand impairments material to the decision and in need of remand for this analysis.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to reflect the relevant evidence of a claimant’s limitations.

Spengler v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-01(a)

Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ’s RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, and is the product of legal error.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including findings from examinations conducted for other purposes.

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

The ALJ was therefore entitled to—and, indeed, required to—consider these findings when assessing Plaintiff’s RFC and the alleged severity of her impairments.

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

Jennings v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-15(a)(3)

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ should scrutinize “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... The RFC fails to include a sit/stand option to accommodate this need to change positions.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to formulate residual functional capacity based on all relevant evidence.

RUTTER v. BERRYHILL · filed 2021-02-08(a)

The ALJ is charged with formulating the RFC based on all of the relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§416.945(a); 404.1545(a). The ALJ in the case did just that.

Section 404.1545(a) permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all record evidence, including evidence no medical source has reviewed.

McMillan v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-02-24(a)

Plaintiff’s arguments (that the state agency medical consultants were not aware of the later-acquired record evidence) and her failure to recognize that the ALJ was aware of, and cited most of, this evidence implies evidence must be reviewed by a medical source before being relied upon by an ALJ. That is not the case. ... Because RFC assessment is made based on “all of the evidence in the record, not only the medical evidence, [it is] well within the province of the ALJ.” Dixon v. Apfel, No. 98-5167, 1999 WL 651389, at **2 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 1999); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

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

Myers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-19(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 medical records, medical opinions, and the claimant’s description of his limitations.

FABIAN v. SAUL · filed 2021-06-30(a)

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 own limitations.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations, and an assessment supported by detailed record evidence may be upheld.

LEFKOVITS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-18(a)(1)

RFC and Step 4: Determine the claimant’s RFC, meaning “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Accordingly, in view of the ALJ’s detailed RFC analysis, I find the RFC assessment to be supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence, including an opinion from just outside the disability period when it relates to that period.

Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-18(a)(3)

See also 20 C.F.R. §§416.927(c) and 404.1527(c) (“[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”); 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545 and 416.945 (“[w]e will assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”). The timing of a functional opinion may impact its relevance.

An RFC assessment may account for the claimant’s medical history, recovery from surgery, and continued need for medication when determining work limitations.

Hemingway v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-20(a)(1)

Rather, the ALJ considered plaintiff's entire medical history, the apparent success of his second surgery, and his continued use of pain medications as needed and determined that, based on the record before him, plaintiff retained the RFC for sedentary work with limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to assess evidence of a claimant’s limitations when determining residual functional capacity; significant functional limitations cannot be inferred from medical records without supporting expert assessment.

Hurt v. Saul · filed 2022-02-14(a)(3)

Plaintiff’s impairments were not so mild that they did not pose any significant functional limitations, and it was improper for the ALJ to draw his own conclusions regarding Plaintiff’s RFC without the support of an expert medical assessment. Therefore, the ALJ’s RFC assessment ins unsupported by substantial evidence, and this must be remanded to obtain further functional evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider medical evidence and other record evidence when assessing what a claimant can still do despite limitations.

Buckman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-02(a)(3)

The RFC determination is the Administrative Law Judge’s ultimate determination of what a claimant can still do despite their physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 404.1546(c). ... However, after taking Plaintiff’s testimony and treating provider’s prescription for a cane, the ALJ took that information into account and crafted an RFC that aligns with how Plaintiff is currently ambulating.

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

Flood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-14(a)(3)

In formulating the RFC, the ALJ must consider all of the evidence, which includes medical opinions, but also includes treatment records, the claimant’s testimony, lay witness statements, and other non-medical considerations, such as the claimant’s daily activities.

Section 404.1545 calls for an RFC assessment based on all relevant, credible evidence, including medical records and the claimant’s account of limitations.

Bauer v. Saul · filed 2022-04-18

The Eighth Circuit has noted that the ALJ must determine 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 her symptoms and limitations. ... Thus, the ALJ properly relied on Dr. Salinas’s medical opinion, as well as other evidence in the record, when determining Plaintiff's RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence in the case record.

DAY v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-06-01(a)(1)

In assessing a claimant's RFC, "the ALJ must evaluate all limitations that arise from medically determinable impairments, even those that are not severe," and may not dismiss evidence contrary to the ALJ's determination. ... While the Court does not ultimately find the ALJ's justification for the RFC to be problematic, the ALJ should ensure on remand that his characterization of the medical evidence is complete and accurate.

An RFC assessment considers all relevant evidence, including medical records, medical opinions, and the claimant’s account of her limitations.

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

The ALJ formulated Plaintiff’s RFC based on all relevant evidence, including the medical records, medical source opinions, and Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and description of her own limitations.

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

Schram v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-23(a)(3)

In short, ALJ Barnes appropriately considered all of the evidence of record and rendered an RFC assessment, which was supported by substantial evidence, including Plaintiff’s complaints, medical records, and medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (stating that RFC assessments should be “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence”).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

VANORDEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-12-27(a)(1)

In making an RFC determination, “the ALJ must consider all evidence before [him].” Burnett v. Commissioner of SSA, 220 F.3d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The presiding ALJ adequately incorporated Plaintiff's mental limitations and physical health, including her spinal condition, in the RFC analysis and explained how such evidence impacted his RFC determination.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations; assessing it may require medical input on significant new evidence.

Juarez v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-04(a)(1)

The ALJ had an obligation to seek an additional medical evaluation of Plaintiff’s condition to properly assess the exertional and postural restrictions she required.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence of a claimant’s limitations.

Molek v. Saul · filed 2023-09-26(a)(1)

The RFC measures the tasks a person can perform given her limitations based on “all the relevant evidence” in the administrative record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); see also Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 362 (7th Cir. 2013). ... However, the RFC assessment is flawed because the ALJ failed to consider various lines of evidence that contradict her findings.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to base the residual functional capacity assessment on all relevant evidence in the record.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-29(a)

The ALJ’s RFC assessment must be based on all the relevant evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... In the case, the ALJ failed to adequately ... explain why she omitted limitations in understanding, remembering, and carrying out complex instructions in her assessment of Plaintiff’s mental RFC. Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s mental RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments and relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Vox v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-30(a)

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. ... Plaintiff correctly asserts that the case should be remanded for the ALJ to consider the effect of her migraines on her ability to work.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence, including treatment history and daily activities.

Olkowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-13(a)(3)

In addition to relying on the longitudinal treatment record and the opinion evidence discussed above in support of her physical RFC finding, the ALJ also properly relied on Plaintiff’s conservative treatment history and her activities of daily living. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3) (explaining that the adjudicator will assess the RFC based on all the relevant evidence in the case record); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(1),(4), 416.913(a)(1),(4) (explaining that evidence that can be considered includes objective medical evidence, such as medical signs and laboratory findings; as well as evidence from nonmedical sources, including the claimant, such as from forms contained in the administrative record).

An RFC assessment considers relevant evidence, but need not include a claimed sit-to-stand limitation when the record supports omitting it.

Kuhn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-20(a)(3)

Contrary to Kuhn’s assertion, the ALJ did not ignore Kuhn’s claim that she could not sit for extended periods of time and needs to change position every twenty minutes.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do despite limitations, and its assessment must be supported by sufficient evidence.

Kotz v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-25(a)(1)

In particular, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence, including sufficient medical evidence.

An RFC assessment must be based on all relevant evidence, and the ALJ must adequately explain how the evidence supports the RFC finding.

Quintana v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-11(a)(3)

This assessment must be “based on all of the relevant and other evidence” in the record. C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the ALJ adequately explained his assessment of the evidence giving rise to his RFC finding such that no reversible error occurred.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider the evidence of a claimant’s limitations; medical records may support an assessment that gives less weight to reported symptoms.

Knox v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-24(a)(3)

Thus, although the ALJ does not explicitly address those specific medical records, they amply support the ALJ’s conclusion that—despite plaintiffs testimony regarding frequent bathroom trips and thrice-daily diaper changes—the “claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limited effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.”

An RFC assessment must be based on all relevant evidence in the record; an ALJ cannot rely on her own lay interpretation to assess significant new medical evidence.

Riddle v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-29(a)(1)

Social Security regulations require that the RFC assessment be “based on all the relevant evidence in the record.” Id. at 1001, citing 20 CFR §404.1545(a)(1). ... The ALJ erred here by relying on her own lay opinions to fill the gaps in the evidentiary record concerning the significance of the newly submitted medical records.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence, including evidence of supported work limitations.

Anglin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-30(a)(1)

The RFC must be assessed based on all the relevant evidence in the record. ... In formulating his RFC assessment, the ALJ failed to articulate, even minimally, his reasons for rejecting the evidence in the record that would have limited Plaintiff to avoiding all moderate noise exposure.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations, and the ALJ’s assessment must be supported by evidence of the claimant’s ability to function at work.

Truxel v. Social Security · filed 2024-05-28(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most a claimant can do despite [the claimant’s] limitations.” Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). ... Based on a careful review of the record, the Court finds the ALJ’s RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence, including medical evidence, addressing Plaintiff’s ability to function in the workplace.

An ALJ must base a claimant’s residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence, including medical records and opinions, daily activities, and the effects of symptoms and treatment.

Cross v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-09(a)(3)

An ALJ must base a claimant’s RFC on all relevant evidence in the record, including the claimant’s medical history, medical findings and opinions, reports of daily activities, and the effects of the claimant’s symptoms and treatment.

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

Engle v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-26(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 ALJ failed to translate the clinical findings she discussed to Engle’s ... functional limitations.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to account for relevant evidence of a claimant’s functional limitations.

Studer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-20(a)

The RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite the limitations imposed by his impairments. Joseph W. v. O’Malley, No. 23-CV-3084-SMY, 2024 WL 4143613, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2024) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). It is “a function-by-function assessment based upon all of the relevant evidence of an individual’s ability to do work-related activities,” id., and must be supported by substantial evidence. ... Because the ALJ failed to appropriately consider this evidence, remand is warranted.

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant medical and other evidence, and the ALJ must explain how that evidence supports the assessed limitations.

Webb v. King · filed 2025-01-10(a)(3)

“To pass muster, ALJs must build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to their conclusions.” Id. at 95 (quotations and citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (to determine an individual's residual functional capacity, an adjudicator must base his assessment on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence”). ... Here, the ALJ’s written decision does not create a bridge between the ALJ’s determination with respect to Claimant’s functional limitations and the relevant evidence in the record; because the ALJ failed to explain the reasoning behind his conclusions, the Court is unable to determine whether the RFC is based upon the record as a whole, or whether the ALJ has supplanted his own lay opinion.

Residual functional capacity includes the ability to sustain work; a claimant seeking a separate finding on that ability must show recurring symptoms frequent or severe enough to prevent holding a job for a significant period.

Ponce · filed 2026-03-31(b)

To require the ALJ to make a separate finding regarding a claimant’s ability to sustain work, the claimant must make a sufficient showing that their “ailment waxes and wanes in its manifestation of disabling symptoms,” and that “the claimant’s intermittently recurring symptoms [are] of sufficient frequency or severity to prevent the claimant from holding a job for a significant period of time.” Frank, 326 F.3d at 619.

Section 404.1545 assesses what a claimant can still do despite limitations on a regular and continuing basis.

Hoekzema v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-20(a)(1), (b)–(c)

A claimant’s RFC is an assessment of “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations” “on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), (b)–(c). ... The ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff could perform certain work on a regular and continuing basis was therefore supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to address whether a claimant can sustain work activity on a regular and continuing basis despite physical limitations.

McQuain v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-20(b)

The purpose of the RFC is to assess “an individual’s ability to do sustained work-related physical and metal activities in a work setting on a regular and continuing basis” meaning “8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b); SSR 96-8, 1996 WL 374184, at *1-2. Here, the ALJ determined that Debbie could perform sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis with certain limitations and accommodations.

An RFC assessment must evaluate whether a claimant can sustain work on a regular and continuing basis, but the ALJ need not use particular words to state that evaluation.

Holladay v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-10(c)

The regulations require an ALJ to assess whether a claimant can do work-related activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c). The ALJ’s evaluation of a claimant’s ability to sustain work is therefore inherent in the RFC calculation, and the regulations do not require the ALJ to recite special incantations to meet the legal standard.

Section 404.1545(c) requires an RFC assessment to reflect the claimant’s capacity to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Mancinelli v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(c)

The RFC necessarily reflects the claimant’s “capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(c), 416.945(c); see also Matta v. Astrue, 508 F. App’x 53, 56-57 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order). ... Here, the Court finds that the ALJ’s implicit determination that Plaintiff can work on a regular and continuing basis is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the work a claimant can perform despite physical and mental impairments; capacity for intermittent work is insufficient to use the grid.

Barnes v. Schweiker · filed 1983-04-26

Under the regulations RFC is defined as the level of work that an individual is able to perform in spite of his various physical and mental impairments. 20 CFR § 404.1545. It is clear that the grid does not apply if the applicant’s RFC is to do a particular kind of work4 only intermittently but rather the claimant must be able to perform a full range of work on a sustained basis.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an assessment of a claimant’s physical abilities for work on a regular and continuing basis, including walking, standing, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, reaching, and handling.

Rose E. Brown v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1986-06-20(b)

This task requires a determination of the claimant’s “residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis,” which includes consideration of the claimant’s “ability to do physical activities such as walking, standing, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, reaching, handling and the evaluation of other physical functions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b).

Section 404.1545(d) requires assessing whether a claimant can sustain work in light of her medical condition, symptoms, and medications.

Edwards v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services · filed 1983-10-19(d)

Ms. Edwards’ claim must be assessed in terms of her ability to function in a sustained manner given her medical condition and the interaction of her medical symptoms, her required medications and her ileostomy. One can have the physical strength to perform certain activities and still be unable to work within the definition of the Act.

Section 404.1545(b) requires physical residual functional capacity to be assessed based on the ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Cohen v. Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-05-20(b)

In determining a claimant's physical abilities, we must "assess the severity of [claimant's] impairment(s) and determine [claimant's] residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) (1989) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1545(b) requires an assessment of a claimant’s physical limitations and residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.

Fulbright v. Apfel · filed 2000-09-11(b)

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

Section 404.1545 includes the ability to work on a sustained basis in residual functional capacity.

Abendroth v. Barnhart · filed 2002-01-03(a)-(b)

Ability to work on a “sustained” basis is part of the definition of residual functional capacity to work.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess whether a claimant can meet a job’s exertional and nonexertional requirements on a sustained basis and maintain regular employment.

Robinson v. Barnhart · filed 2003-01-31

Thus, to determine that an applicant can do a given type of work, the ALJ must find that the applicant can meet the job’s exertional and nonexertional requirements on a sustained basis and can maintain regular employment.

Under § 404.1545(b), a residual functional capacity assessment inherently addresses the claimant’s ability to perform work on a regular and continuing basis, so a separate explicit finding about maintaining employment is not required in every case.

Dunbar v. Barnhart · filed 2002-08-06(b)

Although the plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge incorrectly applied the court of appeals decision in Watson v. Barnhart, 288 F.3d 212 (5th Cir.2002), the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Watson decision does not mandate a reversal every time the Commissioner fails to make an explicit finding that a claimant is able to maintain employment. The Magistrate Judge examined the regulatory definition of “residual functional capacity” in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) and explained that a finding that the claimant can perform work on a regular and continuing basis is inherent in a residual functional capacity assessment.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ to assess whether a claimant can work on a regular and continuing basis when determining residual functional capacity.

Mesa v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-18(b)

However, in doing so, the Watson court did not consider the regulation in Title 20, C.F.R., Section 404.1545(b) that requires the ALJ to consider an applicant’s ability to do work on a regular and continuing basis in finding the claimant’s RFC.

Residual functional capacity measures a claimant’s ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Dunbar v. Barnhart · filed 2003-04-08

The ALJ cited the regulation describing RFC, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (2002), as well as a Social Security Ruling, SSR 96-8p (1996), both of which make clear that RFC is a measure of the claimant’s capacity to perform work “on a regular and continuing basis.”

Residual functional capacity measures a claimant’s capacity to perform work on a regular and continuing basis.

Dunbar v. Barnhart · filed 2003-05-13

The ALJ cited the regulation describing RFC, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (2002), as well as a Social Security Ruling, SSR 96-8p (1996), both of which make clear that RFC is a measure of the claimant’s capacity to perform work “on a regular and continuing basis.”

Section 404.1545(b) requires residual functional capacity assessments to consider whether a claimant can perform work duties on a regular and continuing basis; evidence of varying ability to function requires an express finding on that capacity.

Campbell v. Barnhart · filed 2005-04-27(b)

Both 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) and Soc. Sec. R. 96-8p (1996) set forth the general rule that determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity requires consideration of whether a claimant is able to perform work duties on a continuous basis. ... This is “waxing and waning” evidence that triggers an affirmative legal duty to make an express finding of ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Section 404.1545 treats a finding that a claimant can perform sedentary work as a finding that the claimant can sustain work activities for eight hours a day, five days a week.

Doss v. Barnhart · filed 2005-06-21

The ALJ’s determination that Doss had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work is a determination that she is able to sustain work-related activities on a “regular and continuing basis,” meaning “8 hours a day for 5 days a week.”

A finding that a claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work includes the ability to sustain work on a regular and continuing basis.

Pekrul v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-14

The ALJ’s determination that Pekrul had the RFC to perform sedentary work is a determination that he is able to sustain work-related activities on a “regular and continuing basis,” meaning “8 hours a day for 5 days a week.” See Social Security Ruling 96-8p (July 2, 1996); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

A residual functional capacity assessment generally implies an ability to work on a regular and continuing basis; an express finding is required when evidence shows that symptoms wax and wane.

Parker v. Barnhart · filed 2006-04-19(b)

However, it is settled now that reviewing courts generally assume that administrative residual functional capacity assessments include implicit findings of ability to work on a regular and continuing basis. ... An exception is when medical or other evidence shows that symptoms caused by a severe impairment wax and wane. ... Plaintiff does not show that his symptoms wax and wane. ALJ Leinberger was not required to make explicit findings regarding plaintiffs ability to maintain employment on a regular and continuing basis.

Section 404.1545(b) treats an assessment of residual functional capacity as implicitly addressing the ability to work on a regular and continuing basis; a separate finding is required when evidence shows symptoms wax and wane.

White v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-06(b)

In sum, no evidence of record establishes waxing and waning of symptoms. Therefore, plaintiffs ability to maintain employment properly is subsumed in ALJ Howard’s residual functional capacity assessment. See Perez, 415 F.3d at 465. That being the case, there was no legal requirement that ALJ Howard make a separate, explicit finding on the point.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite limitations; an assessment requiring a full workday must account for whether the claimant can sustain that schedule.

Hines v. Barnhart, Comm · filed 2006-07-11(a)

Based on the undisputed evidence in the record, Mr. Hines does not have the capacity to function at any RFC level that requires an eight hour work day or its equivalent on a continual basis.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do regularly in a work setting despite her limitations.

Catalano v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-02(a)

Catalano’s challenges to the ALJ’s RFC determination fail because the ALJ considered her capacity for sustained work, and Catalano never established any non-exertional impairments. RFC is the most a claimant can do in a work setting on a regular basis, despite her limitations.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider physical and mental abilities, symptoms such as pain, and other limits on sustained work.

Brown v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-26(a)

When making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ considers a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomatology, including pain and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The ALJ’s RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider the claimant’s physical and mental abilities, symptoms, pain, and other limitations affecting sustained work.

Knight v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-11(a)

When making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ considers a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomatology, including pain and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider physical and mental abilities, symptoms, and other limitations that may affect a claimant’s ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Taylor v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-26(a)

When making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ considers a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomatology, including pain and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... This Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s physical and mental abilities, symptoms, and other limitations when assessing the ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Bartrum v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-26(a)

When making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ considers- a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomatology, including pain and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... For the following reasons, this Court finds that the ALJ’s consideration of Dr. Van Gorder’s opinions was based upon a fundamental factual error and must be revisited on remand.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider physical and mental abilities, symptoms including pain, and other limitations that could interfere with sustained work when assessing residual functional capacity.

Goodale v. Astrue · filed 2012-12-13(a)

When making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ considers a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomatology, including pain and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. ... As set forth below, the ALJ’s rationale can be readily gleaned from his decision and the RFC determination is, ultimately, supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider physical and mental abilities, symptoms, and limitations affecting sustained work, including the ability to sit for prolonged periods.

Niles v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-29(a)

When making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ considers a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomatology, including pain and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... As such, the ALJ should reweigh and reconsider the evidence in light of the concerns outlined above, with particular focus on the medical opinions and evidence concerning Plaintiffs ability to sit for prolonged periods.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider a claimant’s physical and mental abilities, symptoms, and limitations affecting sustained work activity.

Morse v. Colvin · filed 2014-02-11(a)

When making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ considers a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, and symptomatology, including pain and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... In light of the foregoing evidence, this Court thus finds no error in the ALJ’s RFC determination, which is supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity measures the ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Slaughter v. Colvin · filed 2016-02-22(b)

After giving the opinions of Drs. Scott and Truhn the weight required by law, the Court concludes Plaintiff cannot work on a regular and continuing basis and, therefore, is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b)(RFC is ability to work on “regular and continuing basis”).

Section 404.1545(b) assesses physical residual functional capacity based on work a claimant can perform on a regular and continuing basis.

Hase v. Colvin · filed 2016-09-19(b)

After giving Dr. Falk’s opinions the weight required by law, the Court concludes Plaintiff cannot work on a regular and continuing basis and, therefore, is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b)(RFC is ability to work on “regular and continuing basis”).

An RFC assessment must account for limitations on a claimant’s ability to maintain a regular work schedule.

Webster v. Colvin · filed 2016-10-19(b)-(c)

The ALJ’s analysis did not discuss Webster’s ability to maintain a regular work schedule and the RFC assessment does not account for any such limitation. Tr. 113-25; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b)-(c) (stating that the SSA will evaluate an individual’s ability to work on a “regular and continuing basis”).

Section 404.1545 permits a finding that a claimant can work on a regular and continuing basis without requiring a particular work schedule.

Razo v. Colvin · filed 2016-10-21(b), (c)

To be able to perform work on a “regular and continuing basis,” see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) & (c), one need not keep a particular work schedule.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess whether a claimant can sustain work on a regular, continuing basis in light of the cumulative effect of medical treatment and to explain that assessment.

Cooper v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-30(a)

In sum, the ALJ erred by failing to consider whether, in view of the extent and nature of Plaintiffs medical treatment, Plaintiff could sustain work on a regular, continuing basis. The ALJ discussed some of the evidence in isolation but did not consider the cumulative effect of Plaintiffs medical treatment on his ability to sustain full-time work.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to address whether treatment prevents sustained work when the claimant provides no evidence of the treatment’s duration or timing.

POWELL v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2020-02-28(a)(1)

Lori has failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that her nebulizer treatments would preclude her ability to sustain work. Accordingly, the ALJ was not required to address how Lori could maintain employment while receiving nebulizer treatments for her breathing impairments.

Section 404.1545(b) permits an absenteeism limitation in the residual functional capacity assessment when the claimant shows that necessary treatment would interfere with a full-time work schedule.

Gajos v. Saul · filed 2020-03-10(b)

In essence, Chestine argues that her medical appointments necessitated that she would consistently be absent from work more than 12-18 days per year, but she has not met her burden to show that her primary care physician appointments and physical therapy and chiropractor treatments preclude her from working.

Section 404.1545 assesses residual functional capacity from limitations caused by impairments; the number of medical appointments alone does not reduce that capacity.

Montez v. Saul · filed 2020-03-12

The question before the ALJ is whether, based on his RFC, a claimant is able to perform any work. “[W]hether the number of medical appointments affects [a claimant’s] ability to work is not an appropriate consideration for assessing [his RFC] because that determination considers only the functional limitations and restrictions resulting from medically determinable impairments.”

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider the claimant’s capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.

Apodaca v. Saul · filed 2020-03-16(a)-(b)

While the RFC analysis involves “the most [a claimant] can still do despite his limitations,” it also includes an assessment of the claimant’s capacity for work activity “on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)-(b).

Section 404.1545(b) requires residual functional capacity to reflect a claimant’s ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Woodson v. Saul · filed 2020-03-30(b)

The regulations defining residual functional capacity necessitate determining a claimant’s capacity for work on a “regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b); see Kangas v. Bowen, 823 F.2d 775, 777-78 (3d Cir. 1987).

Section 404.1545(b) requires assessment of a claimant’s ability to sustain work-related activities on a regular and continuing basis.

Shepherd v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-07(b)

But the ALJ must assess a claimant’s work capacities based on the ability to sustain work-related activities “on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b); see Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1 (July 2, 1996) (“A ‘regular and continuing basis’ means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.”). Because the ALJ has not done so here, the evidence cited is not a clear and convincing reason to reject Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1545(b) assesses what a claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis despite limitations.

Reza v. Saul · filed 2020-04-14(b)

“The RFC assessment is an indication of what the claimant can do on a ‘regular and continuing basis’ given the claimant’s disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).”

Section 404.1545 treats residual functional capacity as the claimant’s ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Judy v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-29

An ALJ’s RFC assessment reflects the claimant’s capacity for work activity on a “regular and continuing basis.”

An RFC assessment that relies on a claimant’s work must address evidence that the claimant sustained that work with a job coach.

Zon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-10

The ALJ failed to articulate a logical bridge from the evidence that Mr. Zon greatly relied on the job coach accommodation to sustain employment as well as the opinion evidence that Mr. Zon needs a job coach to sustain employment to the conclusion that his job coach was not essential to Mr. Zon’s employment, which the ALJ heavily relied on in support of a finding of non-disability. Accordingly, remand is required.

Section 404.1545(b) assesses physical capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis and does not require a claimant to prove inability to perform a reduced-hours version of past work.

Lohse v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-22(b)

When assessing an individual’s physical abilities for residual functional capacity, the ALJ assesses an individual’s ability “to work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... The Court finds that the law does not support a burden on Plaintiff to prove that he could not perform past relevant work if he reduced his hours.

An RFC assessment reflects a claimant’s capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.

Suess v. Saul · filed 2020-10-07

Moreover, an ALJ’s RFC assessment reflects the claimant’s capacity for work activity on a “regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945; see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1.

Section 404.1545(b) requires a residual functional capacity assessment to address what activities a claimant can sustain over a workweek.

Lockett v. Saul · filed 2020-11-03(b)

To the extent Lockett argues that the ALJ failed to address his physical ability to sustain work activities for a prolonged period, we note that (1) “pace” is an area of mental functioning, 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(E)(3), and (2) a residual functional capacity determination, by definition, addresses what activities a claimant can sustain over the course of a work week. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Treatment days alone do not establish an RFC limitation for frequent absences without evidence that treatment required missed work.

Miller v. Saul · filed 2020-10-09(a)(1)

The ALJ properly determined that the record did not support an RFC limitation for frequent absences. Plaintiff does not point to any medical opinions to support such a limitation, nor does she point to any other evidence to meet her burden of explaining why each day of medical treatment should count as a medically necessary absence.

Section 404.1545(a) does not require an ALJ to expressly quantify a claimant’s work hours or days when substantial evidence supports the assessment of the claimant’s ability to stay on task and the ALJ connects that evidence to the RFC.

Sutherland v. Saul · filed 2021-03-17(a)

Where, as here, the ALJ explicitly relied on a medical source’s evaluation of plaintiff’s ability to stay on task, where substantial evidence supports that evaluation, and where the ALJ connected that evaluation to the RFC, the ALJ’s failure to expressly quantify the number of hours or days that plaintiff can work does not require remand.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations, and the assessment must address the claimant’s ability to sustain work.

Nichols v. Saul · filed 2021-06-03(a)(1)

RFC is defined as “the most [a claimant] can do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s RFC includes findings regarding Plaintiff’s ability to sustain work such that “[t]he court is not left to guess” at the foundations for these findings.

Section 404.1545(c) requires an ALJ assessing mental limitations to determine what work a claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis.

Huston v. SSA · filed 2021-06-28(c)

Huston is correct that an ALJ must determine what a claimant can do on a “regular and continuing basis.” Indeed, that is exactly what the ALJ determines when he or she assesses a claimant’s RFC—the ALJ considers “the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] mental limitations and restrictions” and then determines her ability to complete different types of “work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c).

An RFC assessment must account for a claimant’s ability to sustain attention and concentration throughout an ordinary workday; daily activities support that assessment only when connected to that ability.

Wheeler v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-14(a)(1)

Thus, the ALJ failed to draw the necessary connection between Plaintiff’s daily activities and the attention and concentration required to remain on-task over the course of an ordinary workday.

Section 404.1545 assesses the ability to work on a sustained basis; reports of biking or walking need context before they can establish how long a claimant can stand or walk during a workday.

Clayton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-20

An individual’s RFC is her ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... But more to the point, these activities – presented without context – do not inform the extent of Petitioner’s capabilities to stand and walk in an eight-hour workday, five days a week.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires residual functional capacity to reflect a claimant’s ability to sustain physical and mental work activities despite impairments.

Cardenas v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-13(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 her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... As set forth above, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s ability to work an 8-hour day, 5 days a week would not be affected by her panic disorder. As such, the ALJ erred in determining Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.

Residual functional capacity must account for whether a claimant can work on a regular and continuing basis despite recurring symptoms.

BROWN V. SAUL · filed 2021-11-17

I find that the ALJ erred in failing to analyze whether Mr. Brown could work a full-time job on a regular and continuing basis, in light of evidence of frequent and debilitating headaches. She must address this prong of the RFC analysis on remand.

Section 404.1545(b) requires assessment of a claimant’s capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.

Khatapoush v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-29(b)

The critical issue in a disability case is the claimant's “capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... Although the ALJ accurately noted that the record reflects some exacerbation of Plaintiff's mental health symptoms in response to stress, the Court finds that, taken as a whole, the record suggests a continuum of mental health conditions combined with situational stressors in Plaintiff's life, negatively affecting her ability to cope, and preventing work on a regular and continuing basis.

A residual functional capacity assessment must adequately explain whether a claimant can sustain job-related tasks for a full workday.

Migdol v. Saul · filed 2022-01-03

Due to the issues surrounding the pace limitation as mentioned above, the Court finds that the ALJ did not sufficiently address Plaintiff’s ability to perform job-related tasks for a full workday as mandated by Thomas.

Section 404.1545(c) requires an assessment of what a claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis, including whether the claimant can sustain work.

Naumann v. Saul · filed 2022-03-07(c)

The RFC assessment is an indication of what the claimant can do on a “regular and continuing basis” given his mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to consider what a claimant can do on a sustained basis despite limitations from her impairments.

Ray v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(a)(1)

However, the ALJ failed to consider what Ms. R. is capable of performing on a sustained basis despite limitations from her impairments. 20 CFR § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis despite impairment-related limitations.

Ortega Jr. v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(a)

An individual’s RFC is the most the individual can do on a regular and continuing basis despite limitations due to the impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); SSR 96-8p. ... Thus, the ALJ did not fail to conduct the analysis Plaintiff alleges.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to consider a claimant’s ability to sustain work activity on a regular and continuing basis.

Stone v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(b)

The applicable regulations apply a two-step process for determining the claimant’s RFC: first, assessing the claimant’s limitations, and then assessing the claimant’s ability to sustain work activity “on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider whether a claimant can sustain work on a regular and continuing basis when assessing residual functional capacity.

DAVIS v. SAUL · filed 2022-05-09(a)(1)

Finally, the ALJ committed error by not discussing whether Ms. Davis’s symptoms would impact her ability to work on a regular and continuing basis, despite acknowledging Ms. Davis’s reports to doctors that her migraines can sometimes last multiple days. ... In determining whether a claimant has residual functional capacity, the ALJ must weigh whether the claimant can engage in “sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis.” ... The ALJ erred by not conducting this analysis in issuing her decision.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess how fibromyalgia affects a claimant’s ability to sustain work.

Iseminger v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-13(a)(1)

Although the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had a severe impairment of fibromyalgia and/or chronic pain syndrome, it failed to discuss the effect this impairment had on Plaintiff’s ability to sustain full time work.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) assesses residual functional capacity by the ability to sustain physical and mental work activities despite impairments.

Myers v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-07(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. ... If these opinions were properly considered, it is clear Plaintiff is unable to work on a regular and continuous basis. It is clear she would miss more than four days a month and would be unable to sustain full-time employment.

Residual functional capacity assesses what a claimant can do despite impairments; the ability to perform tasks during part-time work does not establish the ability to perform them for a full workday.

Fyffe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-16(a)(1)

The RFC is an assessment of a claimant’s ability to do work despite her impairments. Walton v. Astrue, 773 F. Supp. 2d 742, 747 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) and SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5 (July 2, 1996)). ... That Fyffe can mop, sweep, and carry cat litter during those 3.5 hours does not equate to the ability to do so, as the ALJ’s RFC finding implied, 8 hours per day.

Residual functional capacity measures what a person can do on a sustained basis despite limitations; it need not include an absenteeism limitation unsupported by the record.

Champion v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-11(a)

Further, the RFC is the most an individual can do on a sustained basis after considering the effects of physical and/or mental limitations that affect the ability to perform work-related tasks. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... Here, the ALJ’s RFC assessment is properly understood to have encompassed Plaintiff’s ability to maintain employment, and failure to find that Plaintiff would be subject to additional absenteeism based upon her alleged impairments is not reversible error.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider whether a claimant can perform the assessed residual functional capacity on a regular and continuing basis.

Howard v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-16

The ALJ must consider whether Plaintiff can perform the RFC on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Residual functional capacity must assess a claimant’s ability to work full time on a sustained basis, including on bad days.

Strobel v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-31(a)(1)

But an RFC finding must assess Strobel’s ability to engage in fulltime work on a sustained basis, i.e., on her good days and on her bad days.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider whether a claimant can sustain work on a regular and continuing basis.

ALLEN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-09-23(b)-(c)

But an RFC assessment must still consider the claimant's ability to sustain full-time work on a regular and continuing basis.

Residual functional capacity assesses a claimant’s ability to sustain work for eight hours a day, five days a week, or an equivalent schedule.

Mottesheard v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-21(b)

Moreover, the purpose of determining an RFC is to assess “an individual’s ability to do sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work setting on a regular and continuing basis,” meaning “8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b); SSR 96-8, 1996 WL 374184 at 1-2.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider whether a claimant can perform the assessed residual functional capacity on a regular and continuing basis.

Dorn v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-28

The ALJ must consider whether Plaintiff can perform the RFC on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

An RFC assessment considers a claimant’s ability to sustain work activities on a regular and continuing basis.

Conner v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-09(b)

The purpose of the RFC is to assess “an individual’s ability to do sustained work-related physical and metal activities in a work setting on a regular and continuing basis” meaning “8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b); SSR 96-8, 1996 WL 374184, at *1-2. Here, the ALJ determined that Kenneth could perform sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis with certain limitations and accommodations. The ALJ provided a narrative discussion explaining his conclusions and the evidence supporting the RFC determination.

An RFC assessment must address whether a claimant can work on a regular and continuing basis despite treatment appointments and ongoing care.

Day v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-17(b), (c)

It may be the case that Plaintiff was able to work on a “regular and continuing basis” (see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) & (c)) despite these appointments and need for ongoing wound care, but there is no discussion of this possibility.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) measures residual functional capacity by the physical and mental work a claimant can sustain despite impairments; the ability to work part-time does not establish full-time capacity.

Newman v. O'Malley · filed 2023-09-01(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). ... There is simply no evidence in the record that Plaintiff can sustain full-time work.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate physical limitations and the claimant’s ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-29(b)

In making an RFC determination, the ALJ must “assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations” and then determine the claimant’s RFC for work activity “on a regular and continuing basis.”

Section 404.1545(b) calls for considering a claimant’s limitations before determining RFC for work on a regular and continuing basis; that assessment is separate from classifying a statement as a medical opinion.

de Sugiyama v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-17(b)

An ALJ first considers the nature and extent of the individual’s limitations and then determines the RFC for “work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(b)). The 2017 regulations “narrowe[d]” the definition of medical opinions to focus on abilities and limitations – that is, statements opining on the nature and extent of work-related limitations. See 2017 Regulations NOPR at 62560–01. This is a separate inquiry from the inquiry that is required for assessment of the RFC.

Residual functional capacity requires the ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Hall v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-05(b)

After giving these opinions the effect required by law, the Court finds Plaintiff cannot work on a regular and continuing basis and, therefore, is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b)(RFC is ability to work on “regular and continuing basis”).

Residual functional capacity must reflect the ability to perform the assessed work on a regular and continuing basis.

Cortez v. Social Security · filed 2024-03-07(c)

In finding that someone is not disabled, the person must have the ability to perform the assessed level of work on a regular and continuing basis.

An RFC assessment must address whether a claimant can sustain work on a regular and continuing basis.

MCGLINCHY v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-05-30(b), (c)

The applicable regulations require that the ALJ determine a claimant’s capacity for work on a “regular and continuing basis[,]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), (c), 416.945(b)(c), which is defined as “8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.” ... The ALJ agreed that Ms. Kozak had limitations in her ability to concentrate, but failed to either accommodate those in her RFC or to explain why her concentration problems would not restrict her ability to work. Without such an explanation, the ALJ has not provided a sufficient analysis for me to make a proper determination on review. Remand is required for further consideration.

Section 404.1545(b) and (c) require an assessment of whether a claimant can perform work on a regular and continuing basis.

McPherson v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-17(b), (c)

To be found capable of employment, one must be able to perform any relevant work on a “regular and continuing basis,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), (c), which means “8 hours a day, 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule,” Hines, 453 F.3d at 562 (citing Social Security Regulation (SSR) 96-8p). ... Both plaintiffs medical record and her testimony regarding her pain are inconsistent with the ALJ’s determination; her pain is so extensive that her abilities to stand, sit, and walk are severely limited, and there is insufficient evidence in the record to support that plaintiff could perform lighit work on a regular and coritinuing basis. See’ Tr. 52, 58, 60, 517.

Residual functional capacity requires the ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Reyna v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-07-05(b)

After giving Dr. Rubin’s opinion the effect required by law together with the VE’s testimony about absenteeism tolerated by employees, the Court finds Plaintiff cannot work on a regular and continuing basis and, therefore, is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b)(RFC is ability to work on “regular and continuing basis”).

Residual functional capacity addresses the ability to work on a regular and continuing basis; a claimant must show that treatment requirements affect that ability.

Jones v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-12

Unlike the claimants in Epps and Newton, Jones has not shown that his treatment requirements adversely affected his ability to work on a sustained basis. See SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 (“RFC is an assessment of an individual’s ability to do sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work setting on a regular and continuing basis,” that is, “8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.”); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945 (determine residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis).

Section 404.1545(c) requires a specific finding about the ability to work on a regular and continuing basis when a claimant’s impairment waxes and wanes.

Semper v. O'Malley · filed 2025-06-06(c)

Because the ALJ's RFC determination does not include the necessary finding, the ALJ committed legal error.

Residual functional capacity must reflect a claimant’s ability to work on a regular and continuing basis, including the effect of necessary treatment on that ability.

ROSKO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-07-08(b)

An RFC determination must reflect a plaintiffs capacity to work “on a regular and continuing basis,” which the Administration interprets as “8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.”

Residual functional capacity assesses a claimant’s ability to sustain work activities on a regular and continuing basis.

CHAPPELLE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2025-09-19(b), (c)

RFC entails assessment of a claimant’s ability to do sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work setting “on a regular and continuing basis,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), (c), 416.945(b), (c) (emphasis added), which “‘means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule,’” Hines, 453 F.3d at 562 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Social Security Ruling 96-8p, Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims, 1996 WL 374184, at *2 (July 2, 1996) (“SSR 96-8p”)).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to determine what work a claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis.

Bisignano · filed 2025-11-13(b)-(c)

Per SSA regulations, the ALJ is required to assess a claimant’s mental and physical abilities and then determine the RFC for work activity “on a regular and continuing basis.”

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to address whether a claimant’s impairments permit work on a regular and continuing basis when the record raises that issue.

Yates · filed 2026-01-21(b)

The court concludes that the ALJ in this case erred when he did not assess whether Christina’s impairments would affect her ability to work on a regular and continuing basis, defined as 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.

An RFC assessment addresses the ability to sustain work over a normal workday and workweek; the ALJ need not make a separate assessment of that ability.

Bisignano · filed 2026-01-23(a)(1)

This Court has repeatedly dispatched with the argument that the ALJ failed to assess whether a claimant could complete a full workday and workweek when formulating their RFC and Antonio’s argument similarly lacks merit here.

Residual functional capacity assesses a claimant’s ability to sustain work on a regular workday and workweek.

Bisignano · filed 2026-02-05(a)(1)

By definition, the RFC finding “‘is an assessment of an individual’s ability to do sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work setting on a regular and continuing basis. A “regular and continuing basis” means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.’” Thomas L., 2024 WL 4948805, at *8 (quoting 61 Fed. Reg. 34474).

An RFC assessment must address whether the claimant can sustain work on a regular and continuing basis, including a full workday and workweek.

Burch · filed 2026-02-19(b)

The court concludes that the ALJ erred when he did not assess whether Eric’s impairments would affect his ability to work on a regular and continuing basis, defined as eight hours per day, for five days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.

Section 404.1545 requires residual functional capacity to reflect a claimant’s ability to sustain work despite impairment-related limitations, including a slower work pace.

Russell v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-14(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.

Section 404.1545 requires assessment of whether a claimant can sustain work activity on a regular and continuing basis.

Lewis v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2001-01-02

This period of work was not substantial evidence that Lewis could work twenty hours per week “on a regular and continuing basis.”

Section 404.1545(b) requires assessing whether a claimant can work on a regular and continuing basis; intermittent household activities do not establish that capacity.

Meece v. Comm Social Security · filed 2006-08-08(b)

The key question is whether Plaintiff is able to engage in employment on a “regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Residual functional capacity measures a claimant’s ability to sustain work in an ordinary setting on a regular and continuing basis.

Schulz v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-07

The ALJ found Ms. Schulz had the residual functional capacity to meet the physical and mental demands of less than sedentary work. But this finding does not account for Ms. Schulz’s inability to perform sustained work in an ordinaiy setting. A claimant’s residual functional capacity “is the individual’s maximum remaining ability to do sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis.” SSR 96-8p (emphasis omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

A claimant’s ability to perform household tasks does not, by itself, establish the capacity to sustain full-time work in an RFC assessment.

Mims v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-26(b), (c)

Furthermore, her ability to perform certain tasks does not prove that she can sustain work on a “regular and continuing basis … 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week.” 7 SSR 96-8p; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), (c) (2018).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to explain how a claimant’s mental impairments affect the ability to work.

Wilson · filed 2026-04-14(a)(1)

Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court is persuaded that the ALJ’s narrative warrants remand. While the ALJ did summarize Plaintiff’s medical records in an analysis about his mental impairments, he failed to assess how the RFC determination accounted for the inconsistent nature of his impairments, namely schizophrenia.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to account for supported limitations, including mild mental limitations and nonsevere impairments, in the RFC or explain why they warrant no restriction.

Stremme · filed 2026-05-21(a)(2)

An ALJ must incorporate into the RFC all restrictions caused by the plaintiff’s limitations, including nonsevere impairments and mild limitations, or explain why the limitations do not warrant a restriction.

Section 404.1545(c) includes understanding and carrying out instructions, and responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and work pressures, among the mental functions assessed for residual functional capacity.

Gene B. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-03-31(c)

Listed mental functions include a claimant’s “limitations in understanding, remembering, and carrying out instructions, and in responding appropriately to supervision, co[-]workers, and work pressures in a work setting.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(c) (DIB), 416.945(c) (SSI).

An RFC assessment must account for supported limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, or explain why they need no accommodation.

Boura · filed 2026-03-31(a)(2)

Furthermore, it’s not enough for the ALJ to say that the evidence does not support greater than moderate limitations for mental functioning (see ALJ’s Decision, R. at 25); the ALJ must explain how those moderate limitations are accommodated in the RFC, or explain why no accommodation is needed.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) describes residual functional capacity as a person’s work-related abilities despite limitations.

Woods · filed 2026-04-01(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) measures what a claimant can do despite limitations; an RFC must account for supported limitations in interacting with supervisors and coworkers.

Molden · filed 2026-03-26(a)(1)

The RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite her limitations. Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1000–01 (7th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Also, the ALJ did not incorporate into the RFC or the hypothetical questions to the vocational expert the checkbox limitations regarding accepting instructions, responding appropriately to criticism from supervisors, and getting along with coworkers or peers without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes.

An ALJ need not include mild mental limitations in the residual functional capacity when substantial evidence shows they do not limit work activities and the ALJ explains why.

Packard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-14(a)(1)

As described above, the ALJ concluded Claimant’s mild limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace and adapting or managing oneself did not limit his ability to do work-related activities, and substantial evidence supports this decision. Thus, the ALJ was not obligated to include Claimant’s mild limitations in consideration of RFC, and adequately explained why the additional limitations were unnecessary.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions, physical and mental abilities, and symptoms that may interfere with regular work.

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-15

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.

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

(SS) McNabb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-20(a)

As the ALJ’s RFC assessment is ultimately at issue here, the Court notes that a claimant’s RFC is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations.”

An RFC assessment need not include mental restrictions that the record does not support.

Thompson v. Saul · filed 2023-06-13(c)

Plaintiffs argument that the RFC should have included mental restrictions is unsupported by the record, as found by the ALJ.

Section 404.1545(c) treats limitations in mental activities, including concentration, as potentially reducing a claimant’s ability to do past or other work when assessing residual functional capacity.

Gray v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-21(c)

A “substantial loss of ability” in this area may “severely limit[] the potential occupation base” and would thus “justify a finding of inability to perform other work even for persons with favorable age, education and work experience.” POMS § DI 25020.010.A.3.b; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c) (“A limited ability to carry out certain mental activities . . . may reduce [the claimant’s] ability to do past work and other work.”). Because the ability to concentrate is critical to the performance of any work, Ms. Perea’s conclusions regarding Mr. Gray’s ability to concentrate on even simple, repetitive tasks may have impacted ALJ Holappa’s calculation of his mental RFC.

An RFC assessment must account for supported social interaction limitations or explain their omission.

GUNTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-03(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most that the claimant can do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... However, the ALJ inexplicably omitted a limitation of “superficial” interaction or its equivalent relating to supervisors and the public, id., which the Acting Commissioner implicitly acknowledges. ... Moreover, the ALJ failed to explain this omission. ... Accordingly, considering this inconsistency and the ALJ’s failure to explain this inconsistency, this Court cannot conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination.

An RFC assessment must address supported limits on the quality of workplace interactions; a restriction to no tandem work is insufficient when it leaves required interactions with supervisors and coworkers unexplained.

STURGILL v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-03(a)(1)

In light of the VE's testimony, the Court finds that the ALJ's definition of "superficial contact" as "no tandem work" does not speak to the quality of interactions required at the assessed level.

Section 404.1545 requires an individualized residual functional capacity assessment that accounts for how a claimant’s stress tolerance affects her ability to perform otherwise suitable jobs.

Elmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-15

The RFC is a holistic assessment of the claimant—addressing both severe and nonsevere medical impairments—that evaluates whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or other work in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... In other words, an ALJ must consider how a claimant’s stress tolerance could impact her ability to perform the specific job or jobs that otherwise fit her RFC profile.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations; an off-task limit must have an explained basis in the evidence.

Whyte v. Saul · filed 2019-10-25(a)(1)

Between steps three and four of the sequential evaluation process the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC—that is, the most she can do despite her physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); see also SSR 96-8p. ... The ALJ failed to build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and his conclusion that Whyte would be off task no more than ten percent of the workday when allowed to alternate positions at will.

Section 404.1545(c) requires the RFC assessment to consider a claimant's mental abilities to perform work activities.

Teneyck v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-23(c)

As the ALJ correctly notes, the record contains more than a mere scintilla of evidence that Plaintiff is able to understand, remember, engage in simple work, and adapt to routine workplace changes. See id. at 640-41; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c). Thus, the ALJ's conclusion regarding Plaintiff's mental abilities is supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment must address medically supported mental limitations and explain how they affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Hohol v. Saul · filed 2019-10-31

On remand, the ALJ shall explicitly address all of Plaintiff’s medically supported limitations in both the RFC and in the hypothetical to the VE to determine whether Plaintiff can perform her past work as a dispatcher or if there are other jobs that exist in significant numbers that Plaintiff can perform.

An RFC limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks may fail to account for moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace.

Banks v. Saul · filed 2019-10-16

Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had a moderate limitation in maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace, and limited her to simple, routine, repetitive tasks in the RFC finding – just as the ALJ did in Winsted. ... Due to that error, the Court cannot tell whether the ALJ properly accounted for Plaintiff's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace in either the RFC finding or the hypothetical questions that was posited to the VE and was the basis for the RFC finding.

An ALJ may omit a self-pacing limitation from residual functional capacity when substantial evidence supports that omission.

McKeever v. Saul · filed 2019-09-27(a)(1)

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s decision not to include self-pacing in Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1545(c) requires an ALJ assessing mental residual functional capacity to address work-related mental limitations, including limitations in attendance and pace, or explain why they were rejected.

Vienna v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-26(c)

Because these abilities are a general requirement for all jobs, the ALJ must address these limitations in formulating Mr. Vienna’s RFC.