20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence for an RFC finding and requires the Commissioner to develop the claimant’s complete medical history.

Mosley v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-30(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(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including evidence of impairments that are not severe.

Arnett v. Astrue · filed 2012-04-02(a)

An ALJ must evaluate all relevant evidence when determining an applicant’s RFC, including evidence of impairments that are not severe.

An ALJ must base a residual functional capacity determination on relevant record evidence; assessed limitations need evidentiary support.

Daniels v. Astrue · filed 2012-04-02(a)(1)

An ALJ makes an RFC determination by weighing all the relevant evidence of record. ... However, once the ALJ discounted Dr. Robinson’s opinions, she was left with a record that simply does not support the RFC determination, such as Claimant’s ability to “lift 10 pounds occasionally and less than 10 pounds frequently.”

Residual functional capacity need include only impairments substantially supported by the record as a whole.

Nicolls v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-12(a)(1)

The RFC must only include those impairments which are substantially supported by the record as a whole. ... Therefore, the ALJ did not err by failing to include every limitation identified by the state agency consultants.

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

Norman v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-25(a)(1)

RFC is defined in the applicable regulations as “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

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

Meyerpeter v. Astrue · filed 2012-10-05(a)

...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.

Residual functional capacity is what a claimant can still do despite existing exertional and nonexertional limitations.

Dominguez v. Colvin · filed 2013-02-26

RFC is what a claimant can still do despite existing exertional and nonexertional limitations.

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

Dunmore v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-04(a)

A claimant’s RFC is an assessment of physical and mental work abilities—ie., what the individual can or cannot do despite his or her limitations.

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

Register v. Colvin · filed 2013-05-10(a)(1)

The RFC represents the most the claimant can do despite her credible impairments and it is based upon all of the relevant medical and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do after accounting for physical and mental limitations.

Branon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-10-02(a)

Residual functional capacity is the most plaintiff can do, not the least, after taking into consideration physical and mental limitations.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite physical or mental limitations; the ALJ determines it from all relevant evidence.

Brown v. Colvin · filed 2014-01-16(a)

Residual functional capacity represents the most that a claimant can still do despite his physical or mental limitations. ... “The ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own descriptions of his limitations.” ... Therefore, the ALJ did not err in assigning Brown’s RFC as “light work;” the substantial weight of the record supports the ALJ’s RFC.

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

Alker v. SSA · filed 2014-02-20(a)(1)

A residual functional capacity assessment determines the most a person can do in a work setting despite his limitations caused by impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Residual functional capacity assesses a claimant’s remaining ability to work despite impairments based on all relevant evidence.

Cooper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-06-06(a)

Considered at step four of the sequential analysis used in an ALJ’s disability determination, “[t]he residual functional capacity is an assessment, based upon all of the relevant evidence, of a claimant’s remaining ability to do work despite [her] impairments.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a), [20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)]. ... Ultimately, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination that Cooper had the RFC to perform light work.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and requires the assessment to include all medically determinable impairments.

Cooksey v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-01(a)(1)-(2)

RFC represents “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), and must include “all of [the claimant’s] medically determinable impairments,” id. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by the requisite narrative statement, as well as substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite physical or mental limitations.

Cowles v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-24(a)(1)

The claimant’s RFC is “what [the claimant] can still do” despite his or her “physical or mental limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Blamire v. SSA · filed 2015-05-26(a)(1)

“Residual functional capacity,” or “RFC,” is a term of art that means “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an assessment of the most a claimant can still do despite limitations, based on all relevant evidence in the record.

Vaughn v. Colvin · filed 2015-07-24(a)

The relevant regulations stipulate that the claimant’s “impairments, and any related symptoms, such as pain, may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what [he] can do in a work setting. [The RFC] is the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations. [The hearing officer] wiíl assess [the RFC] based on all the relevant evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); ... As a result, the RFC assessment made by the hearing officer must be confirmed.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for what a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations.

White v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-08(a)

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

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

Conde v. Colvin, SSA · filed 2016-01-25(a)(1)

A residual functional capacity assessment determines the most a person can do in a work setting despite her limitations caused by impairments.

Before step four, the ALJ must assess residual functional capacity, meaning the most a claimant can do despite her limitations.

Walker v. Colvin · filed 2015-08-19(a)(1)

“Prior to step' four, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s residual functioning capacity (‘RFC’), which is the most a claimant can do despite her limitations.”

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity; a condition found not medically determinable need not be considered.

Mason v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-06(a)(2)

Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in finding that fibromyalgia was not an MDI at Step Two; thus, the ALJ was not required to consider fibromyalgia in the later steps.

Section 404.1545(a) permits an ALJ to consider all evidence in the record when determining residual functional capacity.

Rich v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-20(a)

Moreover, in developing the RFC, the ALJ was permitted to consider all evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite the combined effect of all credible limitations.

Newton v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-27(a)(1)

An RFC is the most a claimant can do despite the combined effect of all credible limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Hocking v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-28

A claimant’s RFC is what they are capable of despite their limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... Based on this, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity based on all relevant evidence in the record.

Lambert v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2018-09-05

It must be crafted by the ALJ based on all relevant evidence in the record.

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

Moffitt v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-09-05(a)(1)

“Residual functional capacity” is a term of art that means “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1) & 416.945(a)(1).

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

Blansit v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-05(a)(1)

One’s RFC is the “most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s RFC, and does not support additional or more severe mental limitations.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity accurately, including a sitting limitation that affects the ability to work.

Phillips v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-14

The ALJ’s deficiency regarding how long Ms. Phillips is able to sit at one time greatly affected the vocational expert’s opinion which altered the ALJ’s decision at step five of the sequential evaluation process. Thus, the vocational expert’s testimony cannot be viewed as substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Ms. Phillips is able to perform limited sedentary work in the national economy. Gann, 864 F.3d at 953. Remand is required so that the ALJ may properly determine Ms. Phillips’ RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to reflect what a claimant can do despite limitations.

Schake v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-18

The RFC should reflect what a claimant can do despite his or her limitations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, and it is the claimant’s burden to prove the RFC, Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001). ... The Court finds that the RFC determined by the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

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

Julius v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-25(a)(1)

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

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

Bailey v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-10-17(a)(1)

RFC is the most a person can do despite that person’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It is assessed using all relevant evidence in the record. Id.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to use all relevant evidence to determine the most a claimant can still do despite limitations.

Leon L. Ladda , Jr. v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-18

We uphold the RFC assessment because the ALJ explained his reasoning and assessed Ladda’s functional abilities and limitations in accordance with our standard in Mascio, 780 F.3d 632. ... In the RFC assessment, the ALJ uses all relevant evidence, medical or otherwise, to determine a claimant’s “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. A claimant’s RFC represents “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” Id.

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

Quisenberry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-11-29(a)(1)

At that fourth step, the administrative law judge first must assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity, which is defined as “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her physical and mental] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 643 (6th Cir. 2006) (en banc).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and requires the ALJ to base it on all relevant record evidence.

Freddette v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-01-07(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It must be crafted by an ALJ based on all relevant evidence in the record.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a person can do despite her limitations.

Bond v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-15(a)(1)

An RFC assessment measures the most a person can do, despite her limitations.

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

Conetta v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-19(a)(1)

A claimant's RFC is "the most [a claimant] can still do despite [their] limitations."

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

Palmer v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-22(a)(1)

An RFC assessment measures the most a person can do, despite her limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite her impairments; the assessment must address evidence of work limitations such as a need for additional bathroom breaks.

Walus v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-25(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most she can do despite the effects of her impairments. ... Viewing the record as a whole, the ALJ failed to build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and her conclusion that Plaintiff does not need additional bathroom breaks due to IC and celiac disease. The case must be remanded for further consideration of this issue.

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

Distefano v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(a)(1)

A claimant's RFC is "the most [a claimant] can still do despite [their] limitations."

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

Mosley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545 requires residual functional capacity to reflect what a claimant can do despite credible limitations, including supported lifting restrictions.

Harman v. Saul · filed 2019-03-28

Having reviewed the record at length, the Court finds that the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence because it omits a restriction on overhead lifting (on Plaintiff’s right side), although the record clearly establishes such a restriction. RFC is a measure of what a claimant can do despite his or her credible limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

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

Petris v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-29(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, the ALJ properly utilized sufficient evidence in the record to support the RFC. Accordingly, the Court finds substantial evidence in the record supports the physical limitations in the ALJ’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to consider limitations from medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments.

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-08(a)(1)

“The RFC is an assessment of what work-related activities the claimant can perform despite her limitations.” Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1000 (7th Cir. 2004); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (“Your residual functional capacity is the most you can still do despite your limitations.”). In determining an individual’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all limitations which arise from medically determinable impairments, even those that are not severe.

Mental impairments that cause no functional limitations have no effect on residual functional capacity.

Hatfield v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-15

Because Hatfield’s mental impairments resulted in no limitations, they did not reduce her ability to perform work and therefore had no effect on her Residual Functional Capacity (RFC). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) allows an RFC assessment to rest on relevant record evidence without a medical opinion contradicting the opinions the ALJ discounted.

Borges v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-04-26(a)(3)

Thus, contrary to Borges’s argument on appeal, there need not be medical opinion evidence contradicting the opinions of Drs. Valor, Macksound, and Azar, so long as the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by any relevant evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the entire record without adopting a particular physician’s opinion.

PAGE v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-05-14(a)

This argument fails because it is based on the incorrect assumption that an ALJ is required to choose the opinion of a particular physician to determine a claimant’s RFC.

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

Darnell v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-20(a)(1)

A claimant’s “residual functional capacity is the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole supports the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess what a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations using medical source statements and other evidence in the record.

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-04(a)

The residual functional capacity finding is the Administrative Law Judge’s ultimate determination of what a claimant can still do despite his or her physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 404.1546, 416.945(a), 416.946. The Administrative Law Judge makes this finding based on a consideration of medical source statements and all other evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 404.1545(a), 404.1546, 416.929, 416.945(a), 416.946.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to incorporate ADA accommodations into a residual functional capacity assessment.

Glaspy v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-07

The ALJ properly assessed physical residual functional capacity by determining how long Glaspy could perform physical functions, including sitting, in an eight hour day. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. The regulations do not require that the ALJ incorporate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations into the assessment.

A residual functional capacity finding need not be built from medical opinions, but the administrative law judge must connect the evidence relied on to the conclusion reached.

Tucker v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-06-10

No bright-line rule exists in our circuit directing that medical opinions must be the building blocks of the residual functional capacity finding, but the administrative law judge must make a connection between the evidence relied on and the conclusion reached. The administrative law judge made that connection here.

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

Millard v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-06-17(a)(1)

Steps Four and Five require the ALJ to assess the claimant’s residual functioning capacity (“RFC”), id., which is the most the claimant “can still do despite [her] limitations,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). The ALJ “must determine a claimant’s RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own descriptions of [her] limitations.”

An ALJ must consider all relevant medical and nonmedical evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Swan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-19(a)(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ is expected to take into consideration all of the relevant evidence, including both medical and non-medical evidence.

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

Stallsmith v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-19(a)(1)

One’s RFC is the “most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The Court finds the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Adams’ opinion and the RFC is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) calls for an RFC assessment based on relevant evidence; a physician’s opinion on functional limitations is not required in every case.

JONES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-06-21(a)(3)

Although there is no medical opinion expressly concerning Plaintiff’s functional limitations, the ALJ is charged with evaluating many factors in reaching the RFC, including the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). There is no requirement that the ALJ’s RFC finding be based in every case on the medical opinion of a physician.

Section 404.1545(a) directs the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using medical source statements and all other evidence in the record.

Sandidge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-21(a)

The ALJ makes this assessment based on her consideration of medical source statements and all other evidence in the case record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 404.1545(a), 404.1546.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; the ALJ must assess it using all relevant evidence.

Rosemarie Wall v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-06-27(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It must be crafted by an ALJ based on all relevant evidence in the record.

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

GREENWELL v. SAUL · filed 2019-07-29(a)(1)

Residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is the “maximum that a claimant can still do despite his mental and physical limitations.”

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

Otanez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-07(a)(1)

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

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

(SS) Narvaiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-08(a)(3)

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

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider all relevant evidence, including significant changes to a claimant’s medication.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-08(a)(1), (a)(3)

The ALJ must consider all relevant evidence. Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 322 F.3d 912, 917 (7th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (a)(1) and (3). ... These modifications constituted a significant part of plaintiffs treatment and consequently should have been considered.

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

Petersen v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-08

The Regulations define residual functional capacity as “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [their] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

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

Duvall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-08(a)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) assesses the most a claimant can still do despite limitations based on all relevant evidence, rather than limitations tied to past work or a specific job.

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

A claimant’s RFC is not an assessment of limitations pertaining to past work or to any specific job. RFC is “the most” a claimant can “still do” despite limitations and is assessed based on all relevant evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess what a claimant can do despite physical or mental limitations and to consider relevant evidence of those limitations.

Ruppert v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-13

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the tasks that can be performed by a claimant despite any physical or mental limitations, and the ALJ will evaluate medical, physical and mental factors; [the claimant’s] descriptions of [her] impairments and limitations; relevant medical ... evidence; and other relevant evidence.” Mandziej v. Chater, 944 F. Supp. 121, 131 (D.N.H. 1996); 20 C.F. R. §404.1545.

Residual functional capacity reflects the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; an assessment may account for difficulty reading by requiring learning through demonstration.

Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-17(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s RFC is wholly consistent with the medical, educational, and psychological records, as well as Plaintiff’s own testimony. The restriction that Plaintiff cannot read as part of her job but must learn through demonstration accommodates her stated limitation that she cannot understand what she reads.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ determining residual functional capacity to consider impairments and related symptoms that may limit a claimant’s physical and mental abilities at work.

Noviello v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-21(a)(1)

To determine a plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the plaintiff’s “impairment(s), and any related symptoms . . . [which] may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what [the plaintiff] can do in the work setting.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

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

A claimant’s “residual functional capacity is the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. The ALJ, in determining a claimant’s RFC, must consider all of the relevant evidence in the trial record, including but not limited to the claimant’s medical history, objective medical evidence (such as laboratory findings), effects of treatment, reports of activities of daily living, lay evidence, evidence of pain, and work evaluations.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider the full record and account for the claimant’s functional limitations or explain why a restriction is unnecessary.

Newman v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-23(a)

In determining RFC specifically, an ALJ must consider the entire record, opinion evidence, impairments that are not severe, and any limitations the ALJ finds. ... Because the ALJ neither included a proper limitation in her RFC assessment nor explained why such a limitation was unnecessary in this case, the Court must remand the case to the SSA for further analysis consistent with Mascio.

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

Clement v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2020-01-23(a)

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

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; the assessment need include only limitations supported by substantial evidence.

Capps v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-23(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). ... An ALJ is only required to include in his hypothetical to the VE and in the claimant’s RFC limitations that the ALJ finds to be supported by substantial evidence. ... Here, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination was proper.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; a claimed reduction must be supported by evidence.

Brown v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-24(a)(1)

An individual’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is the most an individual can still do despite his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Plaintiff has failed to establish that the ALJ erred in her determination that plaintiff’s RFC was not diminished by his claims of persistent pain.

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

Albright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-27(a)

The RFC is the most an individual can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). An ALJ assesses a claimant’s RFC based on all of the relevant evidence in the claim file at the time he or she makes a decision, including the objective medical evidence, medical source opinions and observations, and a claimant’s own statements about his limitations.

Residual functional capacity is based on all relevant evidence, including evidence about non-severe impairments.

SWAIN v. SAUL · filed 2020-01-27(a)(1)

The RFC is the most Beverly S. can still do despite her limitations, and it is assessed based on all the relevant evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Contrary to Beverly S.’s assertions, the ALJ did in fact consider the non-severe impairments—degenerative joint disease, gout, and obesity— in his RFC determination.

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

Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-18(a)(1)

Residual functional capacity “is the most [a claimant] can still do despite [a claimant’s] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

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

Calderman v. Saul · filed 2020-02-19

A claimant’s RFC is defined as the most a claimant can do despite his limitations, including both physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... The Court concludes that the ALJ’s RFC finding is supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider all medically determinable impairments; an unsupported finding that medication non-compliance caused periods of decompensation cannot justify omitting them from the assessment.

Kiphart v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-19(a)(2)

In assessing a plaintiff’s RFC, an ALJ must consider the combined effect of all the plaintiff’s medically determinable physical and mental impairments, whether severe or non-severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... The ALJ’s decision to not include Plaintiff’s periods of decompensation in the RFC assessment appears to be based on his finding that Plaintiff’s periods of decompensation were caused by medication non-compliance. ... The court holds that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s periods of decompensation are all related to medication non-compliance.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of even mild mental limitations, alone and with physical impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Burian v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(a)(2)

In addition to thoroughly analyzing Plaintiff’s depression and anxiety, the ALJ is required to considered what effect even mild limitations might have on Plaintiff’s ability to work, both alone and in combination with her physical impairments.

Section 404.1545(a) requires a residual functional capacity finding to consider medical source statements and other record evidence about what a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations.

Pittman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(a)

The residual functional capacity finding is based on a consideration of medical source statements and all other evidence in the case record about what a claimant can do despite limitations caused by his or her physical and mental impairments.

Residual functional capacity describes what a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations and is assessed using medical source statements and all other record evidence.

Aldrich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(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. 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) calls for an RFC assessment based on all relevant, credible evidence, including medical records, treating physicians’ observations, and the claimant’s description of her limitations.

Pumphrey v. Saul · filed 2020-02-20(a)

The ALJ determines 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. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 793 (8th Cir. 2005); Eichelberger, 390 F.3d at 591; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The medical evidence of record supports the ALJ’s finding that Pumphrey’s symptoms would not result in regular monthly work absences during the relevant period if she stopped using alcohol.

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

GLUBISH v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-02-20(a)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to consider how impairments and related symptoms limit what a claimant can do at work.

Dorman v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-25(a)(1)

In making the RFC assessment, an ALJ considers how an impairment, and any related symptoms, may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what a claimant can do in a work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The court finds that the ALJ’s physical residual functional capacity determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations, a separate inquiry from rating impairment severity at step three.

Arnold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-26(a)(1)

This argument rests on a misapprehension of the difference between the step-three inquiry and the RFC assessment: at step three, the ALJ considers the severity of the medically determinable impairments, while the RFC is formulated to define the most the claimant can do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairments.

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

(SS) Bitler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-26(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 is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations.

LINN v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-02-28(a)

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

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

JOHNSON v. SAUL · filed 2020-03-02(a)(1)

“[R]esidual functional capacity is the most [a claimant] can still do despite [the claimant’s] limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

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

Hunter v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-02(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). ... The undersigned finds that the ALJ’s formulation of the RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Rojas v. Saul · filed 2020-04-24(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).

An ALJ must assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence.

Martinez v. Saul · filed 2020-04-24(a)(3)

The ALJ is responsible for assessing a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”

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

Myers v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-24(a)

RFC is defined as what a claimant can do in a work setting despite his or her limitations and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The record contained substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC assessment, which properly accounted for the impairments to her hands and arms.

Section 404.1545(c) requires consideration of a claimant's mental abilities and limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Keeler v. Saul · filed 2020-04-24(c)

This RFC demonstrates the ALJ's contemplation of Plaintiff's physical and mental abilities. The ALJ considered the record evidence and the available medical opinions in determining Plaintiff's ability to perform the physical and mental demands of work activity, and sufficiently described his findings. See id. at 13-20; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c). Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence.

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

STARR v. COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-24(a)(1)

RFC is defined as “the most [an individual] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence and adequately explain the assessment.

GLEASON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-24(a)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ is required to consider “all relevant evidence” and adequately explain the basis of the RFC determination.8 Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 41 (3d Cir. 2001); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (“We will assess your residual functional capacity based on the relevant evidence in your case record.”).

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations; the assessment must have substantial evidentiary support.

(SS) Socorro Jacobo Aguilar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-27(a)

A claimant’s residual functional capacity is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” ... Without medical opinions to support the ALJ’s conclusions, the RFC lacks the support of substantial evidence.

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

(SS) Demello v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-27(a)(3)

“In determining a claimant's [residual functional capacity], 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.” ... The ALJ considered the expert medical opinions in this context, and the context of the record as a whole before concluding that Plaintiff did not prove increased disability.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from all relevant medical and other evidence when the record supports the assessment, even if no medical opinion matches every limitation.

Yancey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-29(a)(3)

The Commissioner has the better argument. ... “We will assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(3) (same). ... In all, Dr. Rosenberg’s examination at least touched on every topic that the ALJ addressed in the RFC. ... Under these circumstances, the Court is obligated to affirm the Commissioner’s final determination regardless of how it might have viewed the evidence in the first instance.

An RFC assessment considers all relevant evidence, including the claimant’s statements and assessments by medical sources.

Stevens v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-30(a)(3)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers all relevant evidence, including a claimant’s statements and residual functional capacity assessments made by consultative examiners, State Agency physicians, and medical experts. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3); see also id. §§ 404.1513(c), 416.913(c).

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite her impairments, and its assessment must account for relevant medical and other evidence.

Pacl v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-04(a)

Despite the ALJ’s boilerplate recitation that he considered “the entire record” (Tr. 1845), the court agrees with Pacl that the ALJ cherry-picked the evidence and that his RFC determination did not account for the thousands of pages of relevant medical and other evidence that conflicted with his conclusions.

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

Marler v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-04(a)

In evaluating a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant medical and other evidence of record. 20 CFR § 404.1545(a). ... After reviewing the ALJ's decision as a whole, it is clear that he considered the entirety of the medical evidence within the record before assessing claimant's subjective symptoms, provided adequate explanation for the RFC determination, and substantial evidence supports his decision with respect to the RFC.

Medical opinions that a claimant can perform medium work can support a residual functional capacity finding for light work.

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

Opinion evidence that plaintiff can perform medium work certainly supports the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff can perform work at a lower degree of exertion.

Section 404.1545(a) calls for an RFC assessment of the work a claimant can still do despite impairments; the ALJ must consider supported limitations when reassessing RFC on remand.

Skelton v. Saul · filed 2020-05-11(a)

The ALJ should consider what, if any, additional limitations are properly incorporated into the RFC assessment to account for Plaintiff’s impairments, and elicit additional vocational expert testimony as necessary.

An RFC assessment must be based on all relevant evidence, and the ALJ must explain why relevant medical opinion evidence about lifting capacity was rejected.

ICKES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-05-12(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. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a). ... Here, the ALJ failed to articulate why she rejected the medical opinion evidence regarding lifting and crafted an RFC with the full range of medium work as it relates to lifting.

A mental residual functional capacity limiting workplace interaction can be supported by the evidence even when initial job training might briefly require more contact.

Vargas v. Saul · filed 2020-05-13

In light of these facts, all of which supported the ALJ’s decision to limit Vargas to work which involved to “only occasional interaction with the public, coworkers and supervisors,” (Tr. 20), it cannot be said that the mere possibility that initial training for these jobs might involve more than occasional contact in the first weeks on the job wholly undermined the ALJ’s decision in a material way which compels a remand of this case.

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

Campagna v. Saul · filed 2020-05-15(a)(3)

While the task of assessing a claimant’s RFC is reserved to the Commissioner and not a medical expert, an ALJ must utilize “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” in the record to assess a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); Diaz v. Chater, 55 F.3d 300, 306 n.2 (7th Cir. 1995).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to determine what a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations, considering medical source statements and the other evidence in the record.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15(a)

The RFC 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(c). The Administrative Law Judge makes this finding based on a consideration of medical source statements and all other evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c).

An ALJ must assess a claimant’s remaining abilities despite physical and mental limitations using the relevant record evidence.

Luevano v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-18(a)(1)

The ALJ must consider a claimant’s abilities despite his or her physical and mental limitations based on the relevant evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; substantial evidence can support a mental RFC limited to unskilled, non-fast-paced work.

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

Notwithstanding these contentions, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s assessment of plaintiff’s mental RFC limiting plaintiff to unskilled, non-fast-paced work.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite the combined effect of all credible limitations.

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

An RFC is the most a claimant can do despite the combined effect of all credible limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-20

In other words, it is the most a Plaintiff can do despite his impairment(s). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; an unexplained expansion from simple tasks to unskilled tasks can leave the mental assessment unsupported.

Andregg v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-21(a)(3)

The ALJ is responsible for assessing a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c); see Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883 (citing Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-8p (July 2, 1996), 1996 WL 374184, at *5). ... The Court cannot determine whether the ALJ intended to adopt the State agency opinions regarding simple tasks or whether the ALJ intended to broaden the range of tasks Plaintiff could do by finding her capable of unskilled tasks. Although unskilled work includes simple tasks, it covers a broader range of work.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite her limitations and requires its assessment based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Poole v. Saul · filed 2020-05-22(a)(1), (a)(3)

A plaintiff’s RFC is “the most [she] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The RFC is assessed “based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record[,]” including “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a)(1), (3), 416.945(a)(1), (3).

Residual functional capacity is assessed using all relevant evidence in the case record.

Liu v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-26(a)(2)

The Plaintiff’s RFC “is the most he can still do despite his limitations,” and is measured using “all the relevant evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2); see Poe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 342 F. App’x 149, 155 (6th Cir. 2009).

Section 404.1545 describes residual functional capacity as the ability to perform physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from impairments.

Whitcher v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-27

An individual’s RFC is his ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from his impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Section 404.1545 requires the residual functional capacity assessment to account for supported mental limitations before those limitations are presented to a vocational expert.

WILSON v. SAUL · filed 2020-05-27(a)(1)

Further consideration of Brianna W.'s mental RFC is also necessary to assure that all the limitations the ALJ finds supported are properly communicated to the VE for consideration at the later steps of the sequential evaluation.

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

(SS) Draper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-28(a)(3)

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

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

Sprolling v. Saul · filed 2020-05-29(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 and free of legal error.

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

Rodriguez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-29(a)(1)

“[D]isability requires more than mere inability to work without pain,” Brown v. Brown, 801 F.2d 361, 362-63 (10th Cir. 1986), and an RFC is an assessment of the most a claimant can do despite his or her limitations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Vick v. Saul · filed 2020-06-01(a)

The RFC is defined as what the claimant can do despite his or her limitations, and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... Based on a careful review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determination that Vick can perform medium work with additional exertional limitations is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

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

Dieter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-01(a)(2)

In making this assessment, the ALJ considers all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including any non-severe impairments identified by the ALJ at step two of his or her analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2).

The ALJ must formulate residual functional capacity from the full record, accounting for the severity of the claimant’s physical and mental limitations.

Stackle v. Saul · filed 2020-06-02(a)(3)

It is the ALJ’s job to formulate an RFC that incorporates the severity of a claimant’s physical and mental health conditions according to the total body of evidence.

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

Wascholl v. Saul · filed 2020-06-03(a)(1)

A plaintiff’s RFC is “the most [she] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The RFC is assessed “based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record[,]” including “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a)(1), (3), 416.945(a)(1), (3).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to use relevant evidence of the claimant’s ability to work, including evidence from when the claimant was still working if later records reflect reduced work activity.

(SS) Shah v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-04

To withstand scrutiny, the ALJ’s analysis of plaintiff’s PTSD limitations must be based on medical or other evidence from a time period when plaintiff was still working.

An ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments that are not severe.

Gresham v. Saul · filed 2020-06-04(a)(2)

When determining the RFC, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, even those that are not considered “severe,” and must determine which treating and examining doctors’ opinions should receive weight and must explain the reasons for that finding.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most work a claimant can do despite impairments and requires the ALJ to consider all impairments in light of the medical evidence.

Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-15(a)(1), (a)(2), (e)

To the extent Plaintiff claims the ALJ erred because her RFC formulation differs from the limitations Dr. Dodsworth identified on his MSS, this is meritless. Dr. Dodsworth’s opinion of Plaintiff’s RFC speaks to an issue reserved for the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c). A claimant’s RFC is the most work she can do despite any limitations caused by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). In formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all impairments and the extent to which the impairments are consistent with medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2),(e).

Section 404.1545(a) permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using other medical evidence even after giving a medical opinion little weight.

Evans v. Saul · filed 2020-07-15(a)

According limited weight to opinion evidence, however, does not render the record devoid of substantial evidence to support an ALJ’s RFC determination where, as here, other medical evidence supports the RFC findings.

An RFC assessment may rely on the record without a medical opinion specifically stating the claimant’s functional limitations.

Ruble v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-16(a)(3)

Because an ALJ is not required to rely on medical opinion in formulating the RFC, the absence of such an opinion does not mean that the ALJ improperly drew inferences from the records.

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

Breckle v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16(a)

Regulations define RFC as “what [the claimant] can do” despite her “physical or mental limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... In conclusion, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination is consistent with the relevant evidence of record including the objective medical evidence, the observations of medical providers, as well as the evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

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

Davis Sr v. Saul · filed 2020-07-17(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 sedentary RFC, which accommodates Plaintiff’s severe impairments of obesity and OSA, is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) does not require an ALJ to include restrictions in the residual functional capacity assessment that the ALJ did not accept.

Queen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-22(a)

Similarly, the ALJ was not required to include any such restrictions noted by Dr. Sisson. An ALJ simply is not required to include restrictions in the RFC that the ALJ did not accept.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to reflect a claimant’s ability to meet work requirements and to be based on all relevant medical and nonmedical evidence.

Silva v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-23(a)(1)-(4)

The RFC assessed should reflect the claimant’s “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work” and must be “based on all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] record[,]” i.e., both medical and nonmedical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1)-(4), 416.945(a)(1)-(4).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider medical evidence and other evidence, including claimant testimony, about the claimant’s limitations.

Al Ali v. Saul · filed 2020-07-27(a)(3)

To do so, the ALJ must consider the medical evidence as well as other evidence, such as testimony by the claimant or his friends and family. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); Craft, 539 F.3d at 676.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment based on relevant evidence; a brief reference to daily activities does not establish the capacity to perform medium work.

Henry v. Saul · filed 2020-07-27

The RFC is the most a person can do despite his or her mental and physical limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545; 416.945. The Commissioner’s determination of a person’s RFC must be “based on all of the relevant evidence, including the medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and an individual’s own description of his limitations.” ... Again, the ALJ’s brief reference to Plaintiff’s activities of daily living does not establish that Plaintiff has the functional capacity to perform a medium level of work.

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

Goeken v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-07-27

“A claimant's RFC is what a [claimant] can do despite his or her limitations.” Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545).

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

(SS) Burdine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-28(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) defines residual functional capacity by what a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations; an unsupported need to elevate the legs need not be included.

Dickinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-28(a)

A plaintiff’s RFC “is defined as the most a [plaintiff] can still do despite the physical and mental limitations resulting from her impairments.” Poe v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 342 F. App'x 149, 155 (6th Cir. 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision not to include a limitation relating to leg elevation in the RFC.

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

White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(a)(3)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as a claimant’s ability to work despite impairments.

DeBose v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(a)(1)

The RFC is an assessment of a claimant’s ability to do work despite his 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)).

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

Civitarese v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-30(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider a claimant’s descriptions and observations of limitations caused by severe impairments.

Barton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-07-31(a)(3)

The ALJ must also consider the descriptions and observations made by a claimant about his or her own limitations resulting from severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Residual functional capacity is assessed using all relevant evidence in the record, including medical evidence and credited testimony.

(SS)Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-31(a)

Section 404.1545 provides that the Commissioner “will assess your residual functional capacity based on all the relevant evidence in your case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The ALJ considered the medical record as a whole and opined limitations beyond those opined by the physicians based on the medical evidence and Plaintiffs testimony that he deemed credible.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider all record evidence when assessing residual functional capacity and to explain the assessment so it can be reviewed.

STANLEY v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2020-07-31

The ALJ must consider all of the evidence in the record and must explain her decision such that it may be meaningfully reviewed. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; Eichstadt vy. Astrue, 534 F.3d 663, 665—66 (7th Cir. 2008).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence of what a claimant can do in a work setting despite limitations caused by impairments and related symptoms.

Gathright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-19(a)(1)

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

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

Benitez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-19(a)(1)

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

An ALJ determines residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

Yang v. Saul · filed 2020-08-19(a)(3)

Indeed, the RFC determination is a legal decision rather than a medical one, and the development of a claimant’s RFC is solely within the province of the ALJ who considers “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” when making a finding.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence, including medical opinions and the claimant’s account of her limitations.

TIANO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-19(a)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity, an ALJ must “base[]” its determination “on all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including the medical records, medical source opinions, and a claimant’s allegations of her own limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... This is not a case where the ALJ failed to properly weigh the evidence; rather, the ALJ’s decision shows that he appropriately weighed the medical opinion evidence and pointed to substantial evidence to support his findings.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions, the claimant’s abilities, non-severe impairments, and symptoms that may interfere with sustained work.

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

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

An ALJ determines residual functional capacity from all relevant medical and other evidence in the record.

(SS) Ingles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-24(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 is the most a claimant can do despite limitations and is assessed using all relevant evidence in the record.

Bunn v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-08-25(a)(1)

RFC is the most a person can do despite that person’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It is assessed using all relevant evidence in the record. Id. ... The Court finds the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence and requires remand to further develop the record and further consider Plaintiff’s maximum RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; unsupported off-task and absence restrictions need not be included.

Beckham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(a)(1)

The ALJ is responsible for assessing a claimant’s RFC based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 404.1546(c). ... For the reasons that follow, the ALJ’s RFC finding is supported by substantial evidence, and his failure to include additional restrictions in the RFC for being off task or being absent from work is not reversible error.

Residual functional capacity describes what a claimant can still do despite impairments, and the ALJ must explain how the evidence supports the capacity found.

DOUTHETT v. SAUL · filed 2020-08-26(a)(1)

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