20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for supported limitations in concentration and persistence; a restriction on work pace alone does not cover them.

Paschal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-23

The ALJ’s RFC and the hypothetical, which is derived from the RFC, are incomplete because they omit Mr. Paschal’s moderate limitations in concentration and persistence.

Section 404.1545 does not require an RFC limitation for off-task time without record evidence supporting it.

Crisp v. Bisignano (CONSENT) · filed 2025-06-25(a)

Claimant is essentially asking this Court to reverse the ALJ’s finding for failing to articulate “off task time” as an additional limitation in this list. However, she points to nothing in the record showing the ALJ rejected evidence concerning off task time.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to account for supported limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, or explain why the assessed restrictions accommodate them.

Null · filed 2025-11-20(a)(2)

The ALJ’s failure to include in the RFC Mr. Null’s moderate limitation in CPP is significant. ... The VE should have been told about Mr. Null’s moderate limitations in CPP, or the ALJ should have explained why the limitations are inconsequential, so as to ensure that the jobs the VE proposed are ones that Mr. Null can actually do.

An RFC limiting a claimant to simple, unskilled work can account for moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace when the record supports those limits.

McKinnis · filed 2026-02-17

The ALJ’s assigned limitations resulted in VE testimony that Plaintiff could perform certain unskilled jobs. Tr. at 15, 135-36. The ALJ adopted such testimony at step five. Tr. at 20. Under Winschel and its progeny, such limitations adequately accounted for the moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ who finds a moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, and pace to include a corresponding residual functional capacity limitation or explain why none is needed.

McGruder · filed 2026-03-06

In sum, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff has a moderate concentration, persistence, and pace limitation required that the ALJ either include a corresponding limitation in the residual functional capacity determination or explain why no such limitation was necessary. Failure to do so precludes meaningful judicial review and thus requires remand.

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

Lustgarten v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-15(a)(3)

In determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinion evidence. See id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Residual functional capacity reflects what a claimant can do despite impairment-related limitations, and the work the claimant is found able to perform must have substantial evidentiary support.

Allen v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-18(a)(1)

An individual’s RFC is the most that an individual is able to do despite limitations caused by her impairments, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... Once the appropriate weight is given to Dr. Lomeo’s medical opinions, as well as the statements of prior treating physicians and of other substantial, subjective evidence, the ALJ’s decision that the Plaintiff's RFC permits her to perform light work under the sit/stand option is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the maximum work a claimant can perform despite limitations.

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

A claimant’s RFC is the maximum work that he can perform despite any limitations.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to consider all record evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, so long as some supporting evidence from a professional is considered.

Vang v. Saul · filed 2019-11-20

An ALJ may consider all the record evidence, so long as some supporting evidence from a professional is considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

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

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

The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [his or her] limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... The ALJ had sufficient information to assess Plaintiff’s mental status and to ascribe a light work RFC limited to simple and routine tasks.

Residual functional capacity is determined from all relevant medical and other evidence, including evidence of symptoms attributable to a medically determinable impairment.

(SS) Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-21(a)(3)

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

Residual functional capacity must be determined from all relevant medical and other evidence, including medical records, lay evidence, and symptoms attributable to a medically determinable impairment.

(SS) Muller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-21(a)(3)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to base residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence in the record.

Johnson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-21(a)(1)

Additionally, when constructing a RFC, the ALJ must base the RFC “on all the relevant evidence” in the record.

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

McConnell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-11-21(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite impairment-related limitations; substantial evidence may support omitting a claimed limitation.

Amparo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-02(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most work she can do despite any limitations caused by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to omit GI limitations from Plaintiff’s RFC.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite limitations and must be based on all relevant evidence.

Hallowell-Petrich v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-02(a)(1)

One’s RFC is the “most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Based upon the foregoing and the record before it, the Court finds the ALJ’s RFC is based on “all of the relevant evidence.”

An ALJ must explain a material conflict between a residual functional capacity assessment and a medical opinion given significant weight.

Nalley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-04

What an ALJ must do, however, is be specific when explaining why an RFC assessment is not entirely consistent with the medical opinion, which did not happen here.

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

Litwin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-04(a)

This determination requires consideration of “a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomology, including pain and other limitations which could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis.” Pardee v. Astrue, 631 F. Supp. 2d 200, 210 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider how impairments affect a claimant’s abilities and their total limiting effects when assessing residual functional capacity.

Hull v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30

In evaluating the RFC, the ALJ is directed by the regulations to consider how the individual’s impairments affect her physical, mental, and other abilities, as well as the total limiting effects of her impairment. ... The ALJ satisfied all of her obligations with regard to weighing the evidence and determining Plaintiff’s RFC and was entitled to rely on the vocational expert’s responses to the ALJ’s hypothetical questions concerning jobs that Plaintiff could perform.

Physical limitations such as stooping may reduce a claimant’s ability to perform past work and other work.

Wimberly v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2019-09-30(b)

A physical limitation, such as stooping, “may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do past work and other work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b); 416.945(b).

Residual functional capacity reflects what a claimant can do despite impairments, and its assessment must account for documented physical and mental limitations.

Scott v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-30(a)(1)

In fact, despite the multiple physical and mental diagnoses Scott has received from multiple doctors, and despite multiple mental health hospitalizations, the ALJ failed to consider those records in determining that Scott mentally and physically could perform a limited range of light work and therefore did not afford proper weight to Scott’s treating psychiatrist’s opinion or his other treating physicians.

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

Scott v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-30(a)(1)

He ignored the diagnoses concerning Scott’s disc problems and fibromyalgia to find Scott could engage in light work, which requires standing much of the day. ... The ALJ also must consider all of Scott’s medically diagnosed physical ailments.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity based on all relevant evidence, including testimony and medical opinions.

(SS) Chavez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(a)(1)

Setting aside the fact that the ALJ rejected such evidence, the ALJ was required to assess plaintiff’s RFC based on all relevant evidence.

Residual functional capacity applies a legal standard to the medical facts concerning a claimant’s physical capacity.

Salinas v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(a)

RFC is the application of a legal standard to the medical facts concerning the claimant's physical capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

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

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(a)(1)

The ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in formulating an RFC, and “an RFC that fails to take into account a claimant’s limitations is defective.” Valentine, 574 F.3d at 690.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a person can do in a work setting despite limitations imposed by all medically determinable impairments.

Kelley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30

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

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for the claimant’s impairments and related limitations; opinions formed without necessary medical information cannot adequately support that assessment.

Murphy v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(a)(1)

To determine the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s “impairment(s), and any related symptoms . . . [which] may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what [the claimant] can do in the work setting.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Therefore, given that neither the opinions of Dr. Caiati nor Dr. Kwock are sufficient to support the ALJ’s RFC determination, the Court finds that remand is appropriate to allow the ALJ to fully develop the record and make a proper determination as to Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence; an ALJ may not substitute a lay opinion for medical evidence.

Maddox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(a)(3)

An ALJ’s RFC is based on more than just a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (Lexis Advance through the August 21, 2019 issue of the Federal Register. Title 3 is current through August 2, 2019) (“We will assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”). Nevertheless, in the absence of medical evidence, the ALJ may not substitute his own lay opinion to reach an RFC conclusion.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence without adopting a particular physician’s opinion.

NIXON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-30

In fact, an RFC is properly based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. Therefore, the ALJ is not limited to choosing between competing opinions in the record, and may instead develop his own.

Residual functional capacity reflects what a claimant can still do despite impairments, and its assessment must consider relevant limitations and explain rejected findings.

SHAFFER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-30(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 of the ALJ’s consideration of the limitations found by Dr. Marrero in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant record evidence when determining the most a claimant can do in a work setting despite mental and physical limitations.

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(a)(1)

In assessing an individual’s impairments, the ALJ considers all of the relevant evidence in the case record to determine the most the individual can do in a work setting despite the limitations imposed by his mental and physical impairments.

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

Huffstetler v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-30(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a) calls for an RFC assessment that considers physical and mental abilities, pain, and other limitations affecting regular work activities.

Session v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-01(a)

To determine a claimant's RFC, "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." Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). ... This Court finds no deficit in the ALJ’s discussion of the record, and further finds the evidence to be consistent with the ALJ’s conclusion that “[Plaintiff has lifting, carrying, standing and walking limitations which allow her to perform work at a sedentary residual functional capacity.” (R. at 17).

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the work-related physical and mental activities a claimant can still perform on a regular and continuing basis despite limitations.

SCHOTT v. Saul · filed 2019-10-07(a)

The claimant’s residual functional capacity is an assessment of the work-related physical and mental activities the claimant can still do on a regular and continuing basis despite her limitations.

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

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

The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [his or her] limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... The ALJ’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

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

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

The residual functional capacity finding is the Administrative Law Judge=s ultimate determination of what a claimant can still do despite his or her physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 404.1546, 416.945(a), 416.946.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most work a claimant can do despite limitations caused by her impairments.

Ward v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2019-10-15(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most work she can do despite any limitations caused by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to assess what a claimant can do in a work setting despite physical or mental limitations, based on all relevant evidence.

Owens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-26(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the work-related physical and mental activities a claimant can still perform regularly despite limitations.

Mergenthaler v. Saul · filed 2019-08-26(a)

The claimant’s residual functional capacity is an assessment of the work-related physical and mental activities the claimant can still do on a regular and continuing basis despite his limitations.

An RFC assessment may omit a claimed walker limitation when the ALJ considers the asserted need and finds it unsupported by the evidence.

Walpole v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-26(a)

Regardless of whether the ALJ had to consider the wheeled walker, Plaintiff’s argument fails because the ALJ did consider whether Plaintiff required an ambulatory assistance device and determined that he did not. ... Here, the ALJ thoroughly explained how the evidence supported his RFC determination. (R. at 20–26.) To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to make an argument that the RFC was not supported by substantial evidence, this argument fails.

Section 404.1545 requires the residual functional capacity assessment to include limitations supported by substantial evidence.

Swilley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-26

In other words, limitations supported by substantial evidence must be incorporated into the RFC and, by extension, the dispositive hypothetical question posed to the VE.

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions; failure to properly evaluate a treating physician’s opinion can undermine the assessment.

White v. Saul · filed 2019-08-26(a)

The assessment should be based on all the relevant evidence in the case record, including opinions submitted by treating physicians or other acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; SSR 96-8p. ... The ALJ’s RFC assessment of Plaintiff’s mental condition is not based upon a proper evaluation and assessment of Dr. Zaidi’s opinion.

Section 404.1545 requires residual functional capacity to reflect the work a claimant can sustain despite limitations and related symptoms, including pain.

Watson v. Saul · filed 2019-08-27

A claimant’s RFC is the maximum work she can perform on a sustained basis despite functional limitations caused by medically determinable impairments and any related symptoms, including pain. ... Therefore, the Court finds that a remand is necessary for the ALJ to thoroughly explain her RFC determination both in relation to the weight afforded to Dr. Smerdjian’s testimony and the evaluation of Plaintiff’s symptoms.

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

Griffin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-27(a)(1)

The administrative law judge bases her residual functional capacity finding on a review of the record as a whole, including a claimant’s credible testimony and the opinions from a claimant’s medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do despite limitations; combined sitting and standing restrictions do not necessarily prevent fulltime work.

GAGNON v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-08-27(a)(1)

The Plaintiff’s argument is based on a flawed premise that Dr. Feller’s combined standing/sitting limitations support disability. Residual functional capacity “is the most you can still do despite your limitations.” ... Even with Dr. Feller’s combined sitting and standing restrictions, the Claimant would have been able to perform fulltime work.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC based on relevant evidence; a standing limit unsupported by medical evidence cannot sustain the RFC.

Tackett v. SSA · filed 2019-08-28(a)

In the instant case, Tackett’s RFC is not supported by substantial evidence for the simple reason that none of the medical evidence of record provides for an ability to stand up to 8 hours in an 8-hour workday.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations and bases it on all relevant evidence, rather than a single medical opinion.

(SS) Findley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-29(a)(1)

An RFC “is the most [one] can still do despite [his or her] limitations” and it is “based on all the relevant evidence in [one’s] case record,” rather than a single medical opinion or piece of evidence. ... The Court does not find error in the ALJ’s reliance on the opinions of the state agency physicians.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess what a claimant can still do despite limitations, considering medical source statements and all other record evidence.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-29(a)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including established limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace.

(SS) Malta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-30(a)(2)

Further, the ALJ must consider “all of [a claimant’s] medically determinable impairments,” whether severe or not, when assessing an RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2). ... The ALJ erred in limiting the hypothetical to only “simple and repetitive work,” and not identifying Plaintiff’s limitations with concentration, persistence, or pace in the questions posed to the vocational expert or the residual functional capacity.

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

Omerovic v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-30(a)

Regulations define RFC as “what [the claimant] can do” despite his “physical or mental limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination was based on substantial evidence.

An RFC determination may rely on medical opinions assessing functional abilities and limitations together with other relevant evidence.

Herbert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-30(a)(3)

The record is clear that the opinions upon which the ALJ relied in reaching his RFC determination included an examination of Claimant's functional capacities and limitations. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the opinions of Dr. Shapiro and Dr. Ganesh include not only medical diagnoses and clinical data, but an examination of the functional impact of Claimant's limitations. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ's RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires residual functional capacity to reflect what a claimant can do despite impairments, considering all relevant evidence.

Levesque v. Saul · filed 2019-08-30

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

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

Cook v. Chater · filed 1995-05-30(a)

Residual functional capacity is what the claimant can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the claimant’s ability to work despite limitations caused by an impairment.

Saviano v. Chater · filed 1997-03-05(a)

RFC is the applicant’s physical and mental strength capability to perform work despite the limitations resulting from his impairment.

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

Brando v. Chater · filed 1997-05-23

Residual functional capacity is defined as what an individual "can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (1996).

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

Clegg v. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 1997-07-18(a)

A person's Residual Functional Capacity is what a claimant can still do despite her limitations.

Section 404.1545(a) measures residual functional capacity by what a claimant can do despite limitations imposed by impairments.

Vadeboncoeur v. Callahan · filed 1997-09-04(a)

RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite the limitations imposed by her impairments.

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

Nunn v. Apfel · filed 1998-06-08(a)

Part of the ALJ’s analytical task here was to determine claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC), defined as what she could still do despite her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (a).

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

Marks v. Apfel · filed 1998-07-09(a)

RFC is what a claimant is capable of doing despite his or her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

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

Eiting v. Apfel · filed 1999-03-29(a)

Residual functional capacity is defined as what claimant can do despite her limitations (20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (1983)), and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental and other impairments. ... Indeed, the objective medical evidence supports the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of sedentary work.

Residual functional capacity is what a person can still do despite limitations caused by impairments.

Hartranft v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 1999-05-18(a)

"Residual functional capacity” is defined as that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairment(s). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the work a claimant can perform despite impairments, based on all relevant evidence.

Ketcher v. Apfel · filed 1999-08-27

Residual functional capacity describes the range of work the claimant can perform despite his impairments based on all relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

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

Coyle v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-08(a)

RFC is what a claimant is capable of doing despite his or her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Residual functional capacity describes what a claimant can do despite her impairments.

Woodford v. Apfel · filed 2000-05-01(a)

Residual Functional Capacity refers to what a claimant can do despite her impairments.

Residual functional capacity describes what a claimant can do despite limitations caused by all of the claimant’s impairments.

Lowe v. Apfel · filed 2000-09-25(a)

"Residual functional capacity" is what the claimant is able to do despite limitations caused by all of the claimant's impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... We believe that the ALJ failed to make the necessary comparison of Ms. Lowe's residual functional capacity to use her hands with the demands of her past work.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite limitations caused by all impairments.

Lowe v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2000-09-25(a)

“Residual functional capacity” is what the claimant is able to do despite limitations caused by all of the claimant’s impairments.

Section 404.1545 measures residual functional capacity by what a claimant can do despite her limitations.

Flaherty v. Halter · filed 2001-03-29

Residual functional capacity ("RFC”) is a measure of what a claimant can do despite her limitations.

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

York v. Massanari · filed 2001-08-23

A claimant’s RFC is what that person is able to do, despite his or her limitations.

Residual functional capacity is what a claimant can do despite limitations.

Ostmann v. Massanari · filed 2001-09-28(a)

Residual functional capacity is defined as what claimant can do despite his limitations (20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (1983)), and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental and other impairments.

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

Mayes v. Larry G. Massanari, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2001-12-21

“Residual functional capacity” is what the individual can still do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (2000).

Section 404.1545(a) measures residual functional capacity by what a claimant can do despite limitations imposed by impairments.

Criner v. Barnhart · filed 2002-07-09(a)

RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite the limitations imposed by his impairments.

Section 404.1545(a) measures residual functional capacity by what a claimant can do despite limitations imposed by impairments.

Brennan-Kenyon v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-20(a)

RFC is a measure of what an' individual can do despite the limitations imposed by his impairments.

Residual functional capacity is what a claimant can still do despite limitations caused by impairments.

Phillips v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-23(a)

As for the claimant’s RFC, the regulations define RFC as that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairments.

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

Phillips v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-10

Residual functional capacity refers to what a claimant can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Residual functional capacity is what a claimant can still do despite limitations caused by her impairments.

Lane v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-06-03(a)

“Residual functional capacity” is defined as that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the Commissioner to consider the most a claimant can still do despite limitations.

Bowser v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-02-07(a)(1)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), the Commissioner must consider "the most you can still do despite your limitations.”

Residual functional capacity is the most a person can still do despite limitations.

Henson v. Barnhart · filed 2005-04-29(a)(1)

Residual functional capacity (RFC) is defined as “the most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1) (2004).

Residual functional capacity is what a claimant can still do despite limitations caused by impairments.

Brown v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-23(a)

The Regulations define “residual functional capacity” (“RFC”) as what an individual can still do despite any limitations caused by his or her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Residual functional capacity concerns a claimant’s ability to work despite physical or mental impairments.

Moore v. Barnhart · filed 2006-05-24(a)

Residual functional capacity concerns Moore’s ability to perform work despite his physical or mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite physical or mental limitations, and the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence when assessing it.

Cassidy v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-05(a)

The RFC is "the most [a claimant] can still do despite" his physical or mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). When determining plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence but ultimately, the determination of the plaintiff's RFC is a medical question.

Residual functional capacity is assessed using relevant medical and other evidence to determine a claimant’s maximum ability to sustain work on a regular basis.

Mikol v. Barnhart · filed 2007-05-25(a)(1), (a)(3)

An assessment of residual functional capacity is based on relevant medical and other evidence and measures an “individual’s maximum remaining ability to perform sustained work on a regular and continuing basis; i.e., 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week .... ” 61 Fed.Reg. 34,479; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), (3).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC to account for medically determinable impairments, but an ALJ need not include a limitation supported by only thin medical evidence.

Kasberger, John M. v. Astrue, Michael J. · filed 2007-06-27(a)

Both the RFC and the hypothetical must account for all of the plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); Young, 362 F.3d at 1002–03. ... But the medical evidence suggesting such a limitation was thin, so the ALJ did not need to incorporate it into the RFC.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a person can do despite the combined effect of credible limitations, based on all relevant evidence in the record.

Derone Combs v. Astrue · filed 2007-07-30

The residual functional capacity is the most an individual can do despite the combined effect of all of their credible limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945 (2006). The residual functional capacity is based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, and is assessed at step four of the sequential evaluation. Id.

Residual functional capacity must account for supported mental limitations, and an assessment inconsistent with the medical evidence lacks substantial evidence.

Veltkamp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-09-05

The regulations also provide that if a claimant suffers from a nonexertional impairment as well as an exertional impairment, both are considered in determining his residual functional capacity. ... The ALJ’s RFC determination is utterly inconsistent with the findings and opinions of Plaintiffs treating physicians and other evidence of record.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite her limitations.

Holland v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-09-27(a)(1)

Residual functional capacity is the most that the claimant can still do despite her limitations.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence, with at least some support in the medical evidence.

Casey v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-04(a)

While the ALJ must consider all of the relevant evidence in determining a claimant’s RFC, the RFC is ultimately a medical question that must find at least some support in the medical evidence of record. ... Our review of the record shows that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by Dr. May’s report, other medical evidence, and the subjective reports of Casey’s mother and former employer. We thus affirm the ALJ’s determination of Casey’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to determine whether the claimant can return to former work.

Blackstock v. Astrue · filed 2007-12-06

To determine whether a claimant can return to a former job, the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” (“RFC”) must be assessed.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to omit obesity from the residual functional capacity analysis when the claimant fails to show that it increases limitations in combination with another impairment.

Hoffman v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-12

The ALJ’s failure to consider Hoffman’s obesity in relation to his RFC was proper because Hoffman failed to show how his obesity in combination with another impairment increased the severity of his limitations.

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

Ford v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-13(a)(3)

In making this determination, the ALJ had to consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires consideration of medical-source statements about what a claimant can still do; the Appeals Council may rely on the ALJ’s consideration of those statements.

Salgado v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-28(a)(3)

Salgado argues that the Appeals Council should have done its own RFC assessment under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), as well as SSR 96-7p. These regulations require consideration of factors, such as “any statements about what . . . [the applicant] can still do that have been provided by medical sources” (20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (a)(3)) and “history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements . . . about how . . . [the applicant’s] symptoms affect . . . [the applicant]” (20 CFR § 404.1529(c)). As we have discussed, these factors were included in the ALJ decision and thus did not require an independent analysis by the Council.

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

Franson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-04-11(a)

RFC is the most, not the least, a claimant can do despite his impairments.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess and explain a claimant’s mental limitations when determining residual functional capacity for sustained work.

Bowers v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-22(b)

On remand, as to Plaintiffs mental RFC the ALJ must articulate and adequately “assess the nature and extent of [Plaintiffs] mental limitations” to enable a correct and complete determination of her “RFC for work activity on a regular and continuous basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545(c) requires the Commissioner to assess the nature and extent of a claimant’s mental limitations and restrictions when determining residual functional capacity.

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-04-28(c)

In assessing an individual’s mental abilities when determining his RFC, the Commissioner must assess the nature and extent of one’s mental limitations and restrictions.

An administrative law judge assessing mental residual functional capacity need not make a separate finding for every limitation on a consultant’s Summary Conclusions form or use the consultant’s terminology.

Dunn v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-02(a)(2)

As plaintiff concedes, nothing in the commissioner’s regulations or rulings requires administrative law judges to make findings concerning each of the limitations listed on the “Summary Conclusions” or to use the same terminology to express the degree to which the plaintiff is limited. Lembke v. Barnhart, 2006 WL 3834104, *7-9, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95154, *24-27 (W.D.Wis. Dec. 29, 2006). With respect to mental residual functional capacity, the commissioner’s regulations and rulings provide only that a person must be able to perform the following mental activities in order to perform competitive, unskilled work: understand, remember and carry out simple instructions; make judgments that are commensurate with the functions of unskilled work; respond appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations; and deal with changes in a routine work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2); Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-9p.

Residual functional capacity must be assessed using all relevant medical and other evidence, including a treating physician’s assessment of work limitations.

Morseman v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-22(a)(3)

Moreover, in assessing the claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider all of the relevant medical and other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). However, the ALJ failed to address the opinion of Plaintiffs treating physician that Plaintiff requires a job that permits shifting positions at will from sitting, standing, or walking (see Tr. 161) or that Plaintiff should never stoop or bend in a competitive work situation (see Tr. 162).

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

Johnson v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-25(a)(1)

“Residual functional capacity” is a term of art defined as “the most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); see also Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461–62 (5th Cir. 2005).

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

Navas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-08-13(a)

A claimant’s residual functional capacity is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545(c) requires an RFC assessment to account for mental limitations; an unexplained restriction to unskilled work does not adequately address them.

Craft v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-22(c)

Mental limitations must be part of the RFC assessment, because “[a] limited ability to carry out certain mental activities, such as limitations in understanding, remembering, and carrying out instructions, and in responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and work pressures in a work setting, may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do past work and other work.” ... We conclude that the there is not an “accurate and logical bridge” between the ALJ’s recitation of the mental medical evidence and the decision to account for Craft’s mental impairments by limiting him to unskilled work.

When assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider observations from treating doctors and others, as well as the claimant’s description of her limitations.

Willcockson v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-28

In addition to medical evidence, when determining RFC the ALJ must consider the observations of treating doctors and others and the claimant's own description of her limitations.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an assessment of a claimant’s remaining ability to work based on all relevant medical and other evidence, supported by findings sufficient for review.

Maffia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-08-28(a)

In order to perform the fourth and fifth steps, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity, or RFC, which is an assessment, based upon all relevant medical and other evidence, of a claimants’ remaining ability to do work despite her impairments. ... In sum, because of the insufficient findings regarding (i) the weight afforded Maffia’s medical evidence, (ii) whether her ability to sit was impaired and, if so, (iii) how long she could sit in an eight-hour day, it is not possible to conduct meaningful appellate review of the ALJ’s conclusion as to the level of work which Maffia could perform and whether application of the Grids was appropriate.

Section 404.1545 assesses residual functional capacity using medical evidence and descriptions of the claimant’s work limitations.

Puente v. Astrue · filed 2008-09-22

Residual functional capacity combines a medical assessment with the descriptions by physicians, the claimant or others of any limitations on the claimant’s ability to work.

An ALJ must account for an applicant’s mental limitations when determining residual functional capacity.

Hill v. Astrue · filed 2008-10-01(c)

An ALJ must take into account an applicant’s mental limitations when determining the RFC.

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

Medina v. Astrue · filed 2008-11-03(b)

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

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence, including treating doctors’ observations and the claimant’s account of limitations and pain.

Britton v. Astrue · filed 2008-11-20(a)

The assessment is based on all relevant evidence in the case record, including the observations of treating doctors and others, as well as the claimant’s own description of his limitations and subjective complaints of pain.

Residual functional capacity is determined from all the evidence in the record.

Tommie Kemp, Jr. v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-26(a)(1)

The residual functional capacity determination is based on all of the evidence in the record. ... In determining that Kemp could perform medium work, the ALJ did not err in relying on the opinions of non-examining physicians because these opinions were consistent with the opinion of examining physicians as well as with the other medical evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider relevant evidence of a claimant’s physical, mental, sensory, and other abilities when assessing residual functional capacity.

McPherson v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-02(a)

Looking at all the relevant evidence, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory and other demands of any job. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a) (2006).

Section 404.1545 assesses what a claimant can still do despite limitations, using all relevant evidence.

Farnsworth v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-04

A Residual Functional Capacity is what Claimant can still do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. Residual Functional Capacity is an assessment based upon all of the relevant evidence.

Residual functional capacity measures the work a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations; an ALJ’s assessment stands when supported by substantial evidence.

Liskowitz v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-24(a)

In considering whether a claimant is capable of work, an ALJ must determine the claimant’s “residual functional capacity,” which is the work he or she can still do despite his or her physical and mental limitations. ... Because Bret-za had nothing to say on the one novel question concerning Liskowitz’s functional limitations that was properly before the ALJ, the ALJ’s findings concerning Lis-kowitz’s residual functional capacity were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to assess the evidence to determine a claimant’s capacity for work despite impairments.

Wichterman v. Astrue · filed 2009-04-02(a)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Wichterman’s pulmonary conditions do not preclude him from performing light work, including objective test results and statements of Wichter-man’s treating physicians. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a) (in determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity, an ALJ must assess all the evidence— including the claimant’s and others’ descriptions of limitation, and medical reports—to determine what capacity the claimant has for work despite his impairments).

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

Gallagher v. SSA · filed 2009-04-03(a)(1)

An RFC finding represents the most an individual can do despite his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

At the fourth step, the ALJ determines residual functional capacity by assessing what a claimant can do despite impairments.

Guy v. Astrue · filed 2009-04-15(a)(1)

In the fourth step of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ must determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), or what the claimant can do despite his or her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Residual functional capacity assesses the work-related activities a claimant can perform despite limitations and must be based on all relevant evidence in the record.

Goble v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-22(a)(1)

The determination of residual functional capacity is an assessment of what work-related activities a plaintiff can perform despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It must be based on all of the relevant evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider medical facts, diagnoses, medical opinions, and subjective evidence of pain or disability when assessing residual functional capacity.

Hobbs v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-10(a)

When making the RFC determination an ALJ must consider objective medical facts, diagnoses, medical opinions based on such facts, and subjective evidence of pain or disability testified to by the claimant or others. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Residual functional capacity is what a claimant can do despite limitations caused by all of the claimant’s impairments.

Webster v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-19(a)

RFC, or “residual functional capacity,” is what the claimant is able to do despite limitations caused by all of the claimant’s impairments.

Residual functional capacity must account for mental limitations that may reduce a claimant’s ability to perform past or other work.

Whalen v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-30(c)

This also includes mental limitations because a “limited ability to carry out certain mental activities, such as limitations in understanding, remembering, and carrying out instructions, and in responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and work pressure in a work setting, may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do past work and other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c); see also Craft, 539 F.3d at 676.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) does not require an ALJ to repeat a physician’s medical opinion verbatim when determining residual functional capacity.

Poe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-08-18(a)(3)

Although the ALJ may not substitute his opinion for that of a physician, he is not required to recite the medical opinion of a physician verbatim in his residual functional capacity finding. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

An RFC assessment requires at least some supporting evidence from a professional.

STALKUP v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-19(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ is not limited to considering medical evidence, but is required to consider at least some supporting evidence from a professional. ... Here, there is no supporting evidence from a professional.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a person can still do despite physical or mental limitations affecting work.

Castano v. Astrue · filed 2009-09-04

To determine the answers to steps 4 and 5 of this process, the Administrative Law Judge must consider the claimant’s “residual functional capacity,” which is defined as “[t]he most an individual can still do despite their physical and/or mental limitations that affect what they can do in a work setting.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

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

Walton v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-06(a)

Residual functional capacity is defined as what the claimant can do despite his or her limitations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a), and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental impairments.

Section 404.1545(a) assesses a claimant’s ability to sustain work activities despite impairments.

Richardson v. Astrue · filed 2010-10-03(a)

Even if the Plaintiff had not proven her disability, the Court alternatively finds that the Defendant cannot not meet its burden under step five that the Plaintiff has Residual Functional Capacity to perform work available in the national economy. Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) is an assessment of an individual’s ability to do sustained work-related physical and mental activities on a regular and continuing basis in a work setting despite her impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do after considering all medically determinable physical and mental limitations, including those that are not severe.

Johnson v. Astrue · filed 2010-10-26

RFC is defined as the most a claimant can do after considering the effects of all her medically determinable physical and mental limitations, including those not deemed "severe.”

The ALJ must develop the record before determining residual functional capacity, but a claimant seeking reversal for inadequate development must show prejudice.

Holifield v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner · filed 2010-11-10(a)(3)

In fact, the ALJ has a duty to develop the record before determining that a claimant is not disabled. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). This duty, however, must be balanced against the fact that claimants bear the burden of proof up through step 4 of the evaluation process, Audler, 501 F.3d at 448. ... So even if we assume arguendo that the ALJ erred in not further developing the record, Holifield cannot show prejudice, which would be necessary for reversal. Ripley, 67 F.3d at 557.

A residual functional capacity assessment must consider all the evidence in the record and have some medical evidence supporting it.

BISSEN v. Astrue · filed 2010-11-22

An ALJ is charged with determining residual functional capacity based on all the evidence in the record, but it is a medical question and must be supported by some medical evidence.

A moderate limitation in responding appropriately to supervisors may seriously affect a claimant’s ability to work; if the ALJ credits it, the vocational hypothetical must account for it.

O'Connor-Spinner v. Astrue · filed 2010-11-29(c)

As the Commissioner has explained before, even a moderate limitation on responding appropriately to supervisors may undermine seriously a claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c); SSR 85-15. The ALJ did not include this limitation in the hypothetical he posed to the VE, nor does he discuss it explicitly in his decision. ... Therefore, the ALJ should explain whether he credits the reviewing psychologist’s finding and, if so, should account for this information in the new hypothetical.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite physical or mental limitations, and an ALJ may rely on a state agency psychologist’s findings when assessing it.

Maffia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-12-01(a)

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite any physical or mental limitations caused by the impairment and its related symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... In sum, the ALJ properly considered and relied upon Dr. Zelenka’s medical opinion in assessing Maffia’s RFC and included Dr. Zelenka’s mental limitations in the hypothetical questions posed to the VE.

Section 404.1545(a) bases residual functional capacity on the claimant’s limitations independently of which jobs are available.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-12-22(a)

The RFC is based on the claimant’s particular disabilities, an inquiry wholly independent from what jobs are available in the regional and national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (listing factors that determine an RFC). The VE does not testify as to what the claimant is physically capable of doing, but rather as to what jobs are available, given the claimant’s physical capabilities. Thus, in a step-five analysis, the VE’s testimony depends upon the RFC and not the other way around.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence and make findings detailed enough to evaluate the claimant’s ability to perform identified jobs.

Griffo v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-10(a)(1)

An ALJ makes a RFC determination by weighing all the relevant evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 (July 2, 1996). ... Here, the ALJ did not formulate a sufficiently detailed RFC finding, thus leaving in doubt whether Claimant could meet the GED requirements of the jobs on which the step-five finding relied.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations caused by impairments and related symptoms.

Allen v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-16(a)

RFC is the most a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations caused by his impairments, including any related symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do in a work setting despite impairments or limitations, based on all relevant evidence.

Clark v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-25(a)

The residual functional capacity determines what a person “can do in a work setting” despite any impairments or limitations “based on all the relevant evidence in [a claimant’s] case.”

A claimant provides evidence for the residual functional capacity finding, while the Commissioner develops the claimant’s complete medical history and seeks medical reports from the claimant’s sources.

Rittenhouse v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-04(a)(3)

The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination^) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) assigns the claimant responsibility for providing evidence for an RFC finding and the Commissioner responsibility for developing the claimant’s complete medical history.

Clark v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-14(a)(3)

The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most work a person can perform regularly.

Outlaw v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-16(a)(1)

An RFC assessment determines the most work a person could perform regularly.

Section 404.1545’s RFC assessment considers physical, mental, and other abilities affected by impairments; the ALJ must explain the resulting assessment.

Cobb v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-17(b)-(d)

Among other requirements, the SSA RFC Ruling directs the ALJ to consider the functions in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, which include physical abilities (such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions like reaching, handling, stooping or crouching), mental abilities (such as understanding, remembering, carrying out instructions, and responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and work pressures), and other abilities affected by impairments. ... The ALJ failed, however, to provide a logical explanation for this conclusion and did not conduct the type of analysis required by the SSA RFC Ruling.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to determine the most work a claimant can do despite her limitations.

Freels v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-25(a)(1)

In determining functional residual capacity, the ALJ must determine the maximum work activities a plaintiff can do despite any limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545 requires residual functional capacity to be assessed from all relevant record evidence, not just medical evidence.

Hardwick v. Astrue · filed 2011-05-04

The RFC assessment is not a “medical issue” under the Regulations; it is based on all relevant evidence in the record, not just medical evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the claimant responsible for providing RFC evidence and the Commissioner responsible for developing the claimant’s complete medical history.

TIPPIE v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-09(a)(3)

The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.”

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider the entire record, including relevant medical and nonmedical evidence and the claimant’s testimony.

Kadelak v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-26(a)

When assessing what a claimant can do despite his limitations, the ALJ must consider the entire record, including all relevant medical and nonmedical evidence, such as the claimant’s own testimony.

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

Lopez v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-06(a)

Residual functional capacity is defined as “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a).

Residual functional capacity describes what a claimant can do despite limitations and is assessed using all relevant evidence.

Perdue v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-13(a)

The ALJ is responsible for assessing a claimant’s RFC, and what a claimant is able to do despite his limitations, based on a consideration of all relevant evidence.

Section 404.1545 treats residual functional capacity as an assessment of what a claimant can still do despite impairments; naming an impairment or symptom alone does not state that capacity.

Borrego v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-04(a)(1)

First, “decreased strength in the right upper extremity” is an impairment or a symptom of an impairment from which Plaintiff suffers, not a determination of her RFC, which “is an assessment of what [she] can and cannot do, not what she does and does not suffer from.”

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to determine residual functional capacity by weighing all relevant evidence in the record.

Dampeer v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-31(a)(1)

An ALJ makes a residual functional capacity determination by weighing all the relevant evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to weigh all relevant record evidence when determining residual functional capacity and to support assessed abilities with evidence.

Sullivan v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-03(a)(1)

An ALJ makes a RFC determination by weighing all the relevant evidence on record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(A)(1); SSR 96-8p. ... The ALJ did not cite to the record to indicate how she formed the conclusion that Claimant could have normal interactions. In fact, there is no medical testimony on the record indicating Claimant can have normal interactions with the general public, co-workers and supervisors. The ALJ did not explain this discrepancy, and thus failed to build a bridge between the record and the conclusion.

Section 404.1545 directs the ALJ to assess the most a claimant can do despite limitations using all relevant medical and other evidence, without being bound by a specific medical opinion.

Paul v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-15

RFC is an assessment of the most a claimant can do, despite his or her limitations, and its formulation is the ALJ’s responsibility. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. Accordingly, the ALJ is not bound by any specific medical opinion and should base a claimant’s RFC on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; an ALJ may assess it from the record without obtaining an expert medical opinion on that capacity.

Felton-Miller v. Astrue · filed 2011-12-21(a)

“[R]esidual functional capacity is the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a) (2011). ... The ALJ was not required to obtain an expert medical opinion as to Felton-Miller’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 allows the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity based on all relevant evidence.

Schmidt v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2012-02-24

At the fifth step, the ALJ may find the claimant has RFC based on all relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.946. ... We agree with the District Court that the ALJ’s decision to find RFC for sedentary work was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence, including medical evidence and the claimant’s statements about limitations.

Fort v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-12(a)

Residual functional capacity is a measure of the abilities which the claimant retains despite his or her impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). The RFC assessment is based upon all of the relevant evidence, including objective medical evidence, treatment, physicians’ opinions and observations, and the claimant’s own statements about his limitations. ... The court finds the ALJ’s reliance on select 2007 medical records from Dr. Conroy and Dr. Crute to be unsupported by the medical record as a whole.

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

Randall v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-19(a)(1)

A disability claimant’s RFC is the most he or she can still do despite his or her limitations.

Section 404.1545(c) requires an ALJ to address supported limitations in social functioning when assessing residual functional capacity, or explain why those limitations are omitted.

Wiszowaty v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-21(c)

The Regulations explain that, “[a] limited ability to carry out certain mental activities, such as limitations ... in responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and work pressures in a work setting, may reduce your ability to do past work and other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c). The ALJ failed to reconcile her concurrence with Dr. Kravitz’s opinion with her omission of any limitations on social functioning. ... On remand, the ALJ must address Mr. Wiszowaty’s social limitations in the context of the RFC and, if the ALJ again does not include any social limitations in the RFC, she must explain why in light of Dr. Kravitz’s opinions.

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

House v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-23(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).

Residual functional capacity is the most physical and mental work a person can perform despite limitations from impairments.

Conn v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-30

RFC is defined as the most physical and mental work activity an individual can perform despite limitations resulting from his impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.