20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

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

(SS) Vance v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-25(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.”

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

Harrison v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-29(a)(3)

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

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

Swindle v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-02(a)

The claimant’s RFC represents the most he can still do, despite limitations imposed by his impairments and symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to account for supported functional limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Fulton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-06(a)

The ALJ’s analysis considers the complaints of Plaintiff’s weakness and pain when reaching overhead and accounted for this by restricting Plaintiff’s RFC to “never reach overhead with the right upper extremity” (Tr. 18). This determination is precisely what an ALJ is required to do when crafting an RFC under the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 404.1545(a), 404.1546(c).

Section 404.1545(a) treats residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite impairments and requires consideration of the resulting functional limitations.

Drye v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-06(a)

RFC is an administrative assessment of the most an individual can do despite the limitations caused by all of their impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1–2 (July 2, 1996). In making the RFC assessment, the ALJ must consider all functional limitations resulting from the claimant’s medically determinable impairments. ... The ALJ conducted the appropriate analysis of all relevant functions at issue in this case.

Residual functional capacity measures a claimant’s ability to perform physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from impairments.

Oaks v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-09(a)(1)

An individual’s residual functional capacity is their ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from their impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... The ALJ’s conclusions are consistent and supported by the record.

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

(SS) Razaqi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-09(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.”

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

Kisling v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-09(a)(1)

One’s RFC is the “most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

An ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment must have record support for its functional limitations.

Rutherford v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-05-09(a)(1)

The ALJ’s RFC assessment includes a limitation that Rutherford would need to use the restroom four times, for five minutes each time, during an eight-hour workday. Neither the ALJ’s decision nor the record evidence offers any support for that limitation or allows the court to conclude that a reasonable mind could find the record adequate to support the ALJ’s conclusion.

Residual functional capacity must account for limitations the ALJ finds supported by the medical evidence.

VanHorn v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-23(a)(1)

The ALJ noted that given Dr. Gibson’s findings on exam, it was reasonable to include the limitations he identified. For some reason, however, the ALJ failed to include the limitations identified by Dr. Gibson in the RFC.

A residual functional capacity adequately accounts for impairment symptoms when its work limitations reflect the limitations supported by the record.

Gorman v. SSA · filed 2022-06-23

The RFC that ALJ Carr developed, and the hypothetical questions presented to the vocational expert, sufficiently reflect the limitations that Mr. Gorman’s neck impairments and the associated symptoms, such as headaches, impose.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence without matching any particular medical opinion.

(SS) Ashlock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-27(a)(3)

The RFC need not mirror a particular opinion; it is an assessment formulated by the ALJ based on all relevant evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence in the case file, including medical findings that may affect a claimant’s ability to work.

Trautman v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-27(a)(1), (a)(3)

However, it is the ALJ’s role to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity “based on all the relevant evidence” in the case file (20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)&(3)), and Dr. Wilson did make specific findings based on the MRI, the X-ray, and a physical examination of plaintiff that would likely impact the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment.

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

Renteria v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-28(a)(3)

In making an RFC determination, the ALJ was required to assess Plaintiff’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments,” whether or not they are severe, as well as “any statements about what [Plaintiff] can still do that have been provided by medical sources, whether or not they are based on formal medical examinations.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). In this case, by omitting the evaluation of Dr. Shah’s medical opinion, the ALJ failed to account for all of Plaintiff’s limitations, rendering Plaintiff’s RFC determination incomplete.

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

Pezzo v. Saul · filed 2022-06-28

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.”

Section 404.1545(a) requires consideration of all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including medical records and descriptions of the claimant’s limitations.

RICE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-28(a)

All “relevant evidence” includes “medical records, observations made during formal medical examinations, descriptions of limitations by the claimant and others, and observations of the claimant’s limitations by others.” Ortiz v. Colvin, 227 F. Supp. 3d at 359 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)).

Section 404.1545(c) includes a claimant’s capacity for attendance in the assessment of mental residual functional capacity.

Trujillo v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-28(c)

Ms. Trujillo’s capacity for attendance is part of her RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence, without requiring a medical opinion that mirrors the assessment.

Kostelny v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-28(a)

The ALJ “will assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” not just medical opinions.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) treats a claimant’s subjective complaints as one of the factors an ALJ considers when assessing residual functional capacity.

Cox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-28(a)(3)

As a threshold matter, a claimant’s subjective complaints are but one of many factors an ALJ is to consider when making the RFC finding. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

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

Delly v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-29(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider subjective complaints among the factors used to assess residual functional capacity.

Gibson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-06-29(a)(3)

A claimant’s subjective complaints are but one of many factors an ALJ is to consider when making the RFC finding. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite impairments, considering all relevant evidence.

Ball v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-30

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

An RFC assessment must connect the available medical evidence to the claimant’s work limitations; an ALJ cannot fill an evidentiary gap with her own medical determinations.

Willis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-01

In either case, it is clear that the ALJ created an evidentiary deficit, made her own medical determinations to overcome that deficit, and thus failed to develop an adequate logical bridge between the available medical evidence and her ultimate RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations; an ALJ may exclude asserted limitations when the evidence supports the assessment and the ALJ explains the exclusion.

Emanuele v. Saul · filed 2022-07-01(a)

The ALJ’s analysis of Emanuele’s medical records, acknowledgement of Emanuele’s subjective claims, and explanation of how he arrived at his conclusion, builds an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion that the RFC need not include limitations to bright lights and computer screens, attendance, and time off.

Residual functional capacity measures a claimant’s ability to sustain physical and mental work activities despite impairment-related limitations; assessed limitations must be supported by record evidence.

Schneider v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-05(a)(1)

An individual’s residual functional capacity is their ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from their impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... On remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate Ms. Well’s functional evaluation, reevaluate Dr. Kiki’s, Dr. Marks’ and Dr. Wei-Hsung’s opinions, evaluate Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia and spina bifida and its effects on the ability to perform work activities, reassess Plaintiff’s subjective allegations and the lay witness evidence, reevaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity and provide a rationale with specific references to evidence of record in support of assessed limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to determine what a claimant can still do despite her impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Collett v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-09(a)(1)

Rather, the ALJ must determine, as he did here, what the plaintiff can do despite her impairments.

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

Burks v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-09-29(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most a claimant can do despite limitations, not the least.

Residual functional capacity must account for limitations associated with a claimant’s impairments, including mental symptoms.

Tannous v. Social Security Commissioner · filed 2022-09-29(a)(1)

In short, none of these symptoms were evaluated at step three, nor were they factored into the RFC, as the RFC’s only relevant limitation (“occasional interaction with the public” – see id. at 20) was clearly inadequate to account for the totality of these symptoms.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence, including nonsevere impairments and the claimant’s testimony.

Allred v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-29(a)

In formulating an RFC, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not “severe,” and evaluate “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including the claimant’s testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; see also Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, available at 1996 WL 374184. ... But here, as noted above, the ALJ referenced treatment records, Petitioner’s improvement with treatment, and Petitioner’s statements made to medical providers during the relevant time period to determine that she was capable of medium work. AR 18-19.

Section 404.1545 assesses what a claimant can do in a work setting despite limitations and restrictions from all medically determinable impairments.

Webb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-29

RFC is a medical assessment of what an individual can do in a work setting in spite of functional limitations and environmental restrictions imposed by all of her medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

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

Jones v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29(a)(1)

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

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do despite limitations and must be assessed before step four.

Ziegler v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29(a)(1)

Prior to Step Four, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” (RFC), which is “the most a claimant can do despite [his or her] limitations.” Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e). ... Having reviewed the entire record, the Court finds that the AL] made a proper RFC determination based on a fully and fairly developed record.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC assessment based on relevant medical evidence when the ALJ explains how that evidence supports the assessed limitations.

Hamilton-Hoge v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29(a)(1)

In this case, the ALJ performed an extensive review of relevant evidence, including Plaintiff’s substantial medical records, before concluding Plaintiff was capable of light work with certain additional limitations. This analysis was entirely consistent with the requirements of SSR 96-8p and other applicable regulations.

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

Swartz v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29(a)(1)

One’s RFC is the “most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545 treats residual functional capacity as an administrative assessment based on the totality of the evidence.

Adamek v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-29

Accordingly, an ALJ’s RFC determination is an administrative assessment based on the totality of the evidence.

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

Hamm v. Saul · filed 2022-09-30(a)

A claimant’s residual functional capacity refers to the most the claimant can still do despite his limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (2021).

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

Lavia v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(a)

The RFC assessment represents the most a claimant can do despite any physical and mental limitations.

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

Blevins-Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(a)(1)

The ALJ is charged with the final responsibility for assessing a claimant’s RFC and must base it on all relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Barton v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-12(a)(1)

If a claimant does not meet or equal a listing, the ALJ must formulate the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is defined as the most that a person can still do despite the limitations associated with their impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) directs the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence; a specific medical opinion is unnecessary when the record provides sufficient evidence.

Morris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-14(a)(1)

An RFC finding is administrative in nature, not medical, and its determination is within the province of the ALJ. ... Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, an ALJ’s RFC determination is not fatally flawed merely because it was formulated absent a medical opinion.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires a claimant’s residual functional capacity assessment to be based on all relevant evidence in the case file.

Spring v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-17(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC assessment must be based on all the relevant evidence in his or her case file.

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

RAMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-10-21(a)(1)

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

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider significant medical evidence that a claimant risks falling without a cane before omitting a cane limitation.

Devlin v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-21(a)(3)

However, the ALJ’s conclusion that use of a cane was not medically necessary fails to take into account the objective evidence supporting Plaintiff’s allegation that when he does not use a cane, he is at risk of falling and that he presented to emergency care during the relevant period with injuries after falling.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ need not credit a claimant’s testimony about needing a cane over medical opinions and other medical evidence.

Winters v. P Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-24(a)(3)

And, although Winters faults the ALJ for failing to add additional limitations despite his testimony that he always needs to use a cane, the ALJ was not required to rely on Winters’s testimony over the medical opinions or other medical evidence.

Residual functional capacity is based on all relevant medical and other evidence in the record.

Megehee v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-10-24(a)

The ALJ considered the entire record when determining Plaintiff’s RFC, as the ALJ properly discussed the medical and non-medical evidence of record.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence and known medically determinable impairments; a cane limitation is unnecessary when the evidence supports the ability to walk and balance without one.

Winters v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2022-10-24(a)(2), (a)(3)

In formulating a residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” and all of the claimant’s “medically determinable impairments” about which the ALJ is aware. Id. § 404.1545(a)(2), (a)(3). ... Here, the ALJ recounted in detail the medical records and opinions on which he relied, as well as the other circumstances that he credited in weighing the evidence and finding that Winters’s residual functional capacity need not include a specific limitation for usage of a cane.

An RFC assessment must be based on all relevant medical and other evidence; conflicting evidence about a claimant’s need for a cane does not defeat an assessment supported by substantial evidence.

Burks v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-27(a)(3)

The RFC assessment is based on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Having reviewed the ALJ’s decision and the transcript and considered the arguments made by Burks, the Court finds that, even though there may be some contrary evidence concerning her use of and the medical necessity for a cane, the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.

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

ZAMLOUT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-10-28(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s RFC is the most she can do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite her limitations; restrictions addressing headache triggers may account for continuing symptoms.

Austin v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-01(a)(1)

“A claimant’s RFC is ‘the most’ that the claimant can do in a work setting despite her limitations.” Schmitt, 27 F.4th at 1360 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). ... Even so, the RFC assessment includes additional limitations that accommodate Austin’s complaints of continuing headaches. Namely, the ALJ found that Austin could perform “light work” but should avoid extreme cold and wetness, direct sunlight, and loud noises. These limitations account for specific stressors that trigger Austin’s headaches. Thus, Austin’s argument that the RFC assessment does not reflect any specific limitations due to her continued headaches cannot succeed.

In assessing residual functional capacity under § 404.1545, an ALJ need include cane use as a functional limitation only if the record establishes that it is medically required.

Graham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-03

At step four, the ALJ must identify plaintiff's functional limitations or restrictions, and assess work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis, including a required narrative discussion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945; Social Securing Ruling (SSR) 96-8p. ... The use of a hand-held assistive device such as a cane is a functional limitation only if it is medically required. ... The ALJ’s decision not to include use of a cane in the RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires consideration of medical evidence and descriptions of a claimant’s limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

DEANGELO, JR. v. SAUL · filed 2022-11-07(a)

That evidence includes medical records, observations made during formal medical examinations, descriptions of limitations by the claimant and others, and observations of the claimant’s limitations by others. See Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 41; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Residual functional capacity reflects the most a claimant can do despite his limitations, rather than ideal working conditions.

Preston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-12(a)(1)

And the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC reflects the most he can do despite his limitations, not what the ideal conditions might be.

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

Holley v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-15(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most a claimant can still do despite his or her physical or mental limitations.” Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations, alteration and citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The ALJ considered the proper evidence in the RFC determination, and this finding is likewise supported by substantial evidence.

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

Bronson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-15(a)(1)

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

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

Bennett v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-15(a)(1)

The RFC determination sets out an individual’s work-related abilities despite his or her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most work a claimant can perform.

Hawkins v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-16

A claimant’s RFC is the most work the claimant can perform, not the least.

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

KRAENBRING v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2022-12-16(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).”

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider the nature and extent of a claimant’s mental limitations based on all relevant evidence.

Hawkins v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-16(a)(3), (c)

At step four, the ALJ must consider the nature and extent of a claimant’s mental limitations based on all relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), (c).

Section 404.1545(a) assesses the sustained physical and mental work a claimant can still do regularly despite limitations.

(SS) Vang v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-19(a)

The RFC is an assessment of the sustained, work-related physical and mental activities the claimant can still do on a regular and continuing basis despite his limitations.

Section 404.1545 makes the ALJ responsible for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity; the ALJ need not adopt a physician’s conclusions about the claimant’s limitations.

Albright v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-27

It is the responsibility of the ALJ –- not the claimant’s physician –- to determine the claimant’s abilities and limitations for purposes of their residual functional capacity. Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to assess what a claimant can do despite physical or mental limitations using all relevant record evidence.

Swistara v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-28(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). ... Indeed, as discussed by the ALJ, the evidence of record showed that Plaintiff suffered from several impairments, but the record simply did not support Plaintiff’s extreme limitations regarding her ability to sit, stand, and walk (Tr. 15-24).

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

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-04(a)(1)

The RFC assessment is an evaluation of the most a claimant can still do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) allows an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity without reciting a physician’s opinion verbatim.

Yee v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-06(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.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3)). ... Here, the ALJ thoroughly examined all the evidence and properly explained why he rejected the findings of each of the medical experts.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC to reflect a claimant’s maximum sustained work ability, including limitations credibly established by the record.

FETTERS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-01-09(a)(1)

ALJs must formulate an RFC that accurately reflects a claimant’s maximum sustained work ability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). Accordingly, any limitation that is credibly established by evidence in the record must be included in the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence and to reassess it when errors in evaluating medical opinions affect the assessment.

Forgey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-10

The ALJ assesses a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... The ALJ’s RFC determination was based on medical evidence; therefore, Plaintiff has failed to show error with the ALJ’s reasoning. But because the Court has determined that the ALJ partially erred in evaluating the medical opinions of Dr. Baker and Dr. Campbell, and such errors adversely affect the ALJ’s RFC determination, the ALJ must still reassess Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations, rather than the conditions in which the claimant would function best.

(SS) Tainter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-03(a)(1)

Yet the RFC is not a statement of the work environment in which the claimant would “function best;” it is a statement of the most one can do despite one’s limitations.

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

Miller v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of SSA · filed 2023-02-03(a)(3)

The ALJ will take into account “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” Id. at § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the sustained work-related activities a claimant can perform despite limitations.

(SS) Gitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-06(a)

The RFC is an assessment of the sustained, work-related physical and mental activities the claimant can still do on a regular and continuing basis despite his limitations. ... Here, the Court finds the RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and must be based on all relevant evidence in the record, rather than a single medical opinion.

(SS) Alcantar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-07(a)(1)

An RFC “is the most [one] can still do despite [their] 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 ALJ sufficiently explained how they reached their RFC’s lifting and carrying limitation.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider a claimant’s physical and mental abilities, symptoms, and other limitations; an earlier medical opinion may support the assessment when later evidence does not undermine it.

Hallman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-09(a)

In making an RFC assessment, the ALJ should consider “a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomology, including pain and other limitations which could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis.” Pardee v. Astrue, 631 F. Supp. 2d 200, 221 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). ... On this record, I disagree that Balderman’s and Santarpia’s consultative medical opinions were rendered stale by subsequent developments in plaintiff’s medical record, and I find that the RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider important evidence that directly contradicts the limitations in an assessed residual functional capacity.

Barnes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-13

While the ALJ need not comment on every piece of evidence in the record, he cannot ignore important evidence that directly contradicts the limitations set forth in the RFC.

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity by resolving conflicts in the evidence without adopting a particular medical opinion.

(SS) Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-14

The ALJ was not required to base the RFC on a particular medical opinion but could permissibly resolve conflicts and ambiguities in the evidence, including partially crediting plaintiff’s testimony about her limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; an assessment that overlooks material limitations requires further development.

Hicks v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-02-16(a)(1)

Of particular concern to the undersigned is the ALJ’s RFC determination. RFC is the most that a person can do despite that person’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a)(1). ... The ALJ did not have medical opinion evidence which took into account Plaintiff's symptoms of psychosis and did not consider the combined effects of Plaintiff's mental limitations. ... The Court believes remand is necessary for the ALJ to more fully and fairly develop the record regarding Plaintiff's RFC.

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

Darcy v. Saul · filed 2023-02-16

A claimant’s RFC “is the most [the plaintiff] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence, including commonsense judgments about functional limits that do not require medical expertise.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-22(a)(3)

ALJ Miller was able to review those medical findings, along with “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” to render the “commonsense judgment[]” that “additional functional restrictions [were] merited.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3); Gordils, 921 F.2d at 329; R. 25. The ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence.

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

Kuhlmann v. Saul · filed 2023-02-22(a)(1)

RFC is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite” his or her physical or mental limitations.

An RFC determination may synthesize the medical evidence without precisely matching any medical provider’s assessment.

(SS) Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-23

However, as previously noted, the RFC is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. ... It is therefore squarely within the ALJ’s province to synthesize the medical evidence, resolve conflicts and ambiguities in the medical testimony, and determine credibility.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires residual functional capacity to be assessed using all relevant evidence; limitations unsupported by that evidence need not be included.

Carlson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-24(a)(1)

The Court finds that the ALJ considered all of the relevant evidence in determining that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work with specific limitations and did not err by failing to include limitations for part-time work and frequent changes in position.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence, including objective evidence and medical findings.

Reyes-Villarini v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-24(a)

In contrast to plaintiff’s position, the ALJ properly assessed his RFC based on the ALJ’s consideration of all relevant evidence of record, including plaintiff’s objective evidence and the opinions and medical findings of record.

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

Summers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-27(a)(1)

The RFC assessment is an evaluation of the most a claimant can still do despite her limitations. ... Plaintiff has not carried her burden to show that the evidence before the ALJ required the inclusion of greater limitations than those the ALJ found.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) measures the work a claimant can do despite limitations; the residual functional capacity analysis need not address conditions that would merely be optimal.

Hammons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-28(a)(1)

For purposes of social security benefits, the question of an individual’s residual functional capacity centers on the conditions necessary for the individual to complete work despite his limitations.

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

Nye v. Saul · filed 2023-03-01(a)(1)

RFC is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite” his or her physical or mental limitations.

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

(SS) Aguilera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-07(a)(1)

The RFC is “the most you can still do despite your limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). Plaintiff’s most recent letter explains in generalized terms that she suffered continuous pain and limitation, which does not suggest she was necessarily incapable of performing light work with the identified restrictions.

An ALJ is responsible for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Evans v. Social Security · filed 2023-03-08(a)(3)

ALJs are tasked by the Social Security regulations to render the decision on a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); Rounds, 807 F.3d at 1006.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to base residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence in the claimant’s record, without discussing every treatment note.

COPPERSMITH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-03-08(a)(1)

It must be “based on all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Id. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Because ALJs are not required to “make reference to every relevant treatment note,” Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 42 (3d Cir. 2001), and it was not necessary for the ALJ to reject the evidence cited by Plaintiff to reject NP Martuccio’s off-task and absences opinions, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s cherry-picking argument.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do in a work setting despite limitations caused by impairments and related symptoms.

Vanberg v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-09(a)(1)

A claimant’s residual functional capacity is the most that the claimant can still do in a work setting despite the physical and mental limitations caused by their impairments and any related symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... To the extent Plaintiff's argument is that greater limitations were required because of the ALJ’s alleged errors in discounting Plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony, that argument fails for the reasons described above concerning the ALJ’s appropriate findings relating to Plaintiff's credibility.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all the evidence when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity; that assessment must be supported by substantial evidence.

Holtan v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-09(a)(3)

The regulations provide that the ALJ must assess all the evidence, including the claimant's and others' descriptions of the limitations, and medical reports, to determine what capacity the claimant has for work despite his or her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) and 416.945(a)(3). ... I find that the ALJ's RFC is not supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity measures the physical and mental work a claimant can sustain despite limitations from impairments and informs steps four and five.

Pumroy v. O'Malley · filed 2023-03-10(a)(1)

Before considering to the fourth step, the ALJ must first determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity. An individual’s residual functional capacity is their ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from their impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The residual functional capacity is relevant to both the fourth and fifth steps of the analysis. ... The ALJ’s determination of Plaintiff’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations from impairments and related symptoms.

Martin v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-10(a)(1)

The claimant’s RFC is what’s left—“the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations.” Id. ... The Court thus finds the ALJ considered all the evidence related to Plaintiff’s degenerative disc disease and sufficiently explained how such evidence supported the RFC assessment.

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

(SS) Schneider v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-13(a)

In determining residual functional capacity, the ALJ must assess what the plaintiff can still do in light of both physical and mental limitations.

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

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-13(a)(3)

In fact, the regulations clearly articulate that it is the ALJ’s responsibility to assess RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3); 404.1546(c).

An RFC limited to simple, routine work can account for moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, including attendance and punctuality, without a separate finding.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-14(c)

Because the Court has found that the inclusion of “simple, routine work” accounts for limitations with concentration, persistence, and pace, it logically follows that “simple, routine work” incorporates Plaintiff’s attendance and punctuality issues since that is part of the overall definition for concentration, persistence, and pace. A separate RFC finding by the ALJ was unnecessary.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) bases residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence; the assessment need not mirror a particular opinion.

(SS) Cooper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-14(a)(3)

The RFC need not mirror a particular opinion; it is an assessment formulated by the ALJ based on all relevant evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3).

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite her limitations, and the ALJ must explain how evidence of a vision impairment supports the assessed capacity.

Norman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-14(a)(1)

The RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite her limitations. Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1000–01 (7th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Thus, the ALJ did not build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence of the Plaintiff’s vision impairment to the RFC, which requires remand.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to determine residual functional capacity before steps four and five, considering medically determinable impairments even when they are not severe.

BAKER v. SAUL · filed 2023-03-14(a)(1)–(2), (5)

Before proceeding to steps four and five, an ALJ must first formulate the claimant’s RFC, which is a finding of “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations” due to “medically determinable impairments” including those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1)—(2), (5); 416.945(a)(1)—(2), (5).

Residual functional capacity must be based on all relevant evidence in the claimant’s case record.

Harrington v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-15(a)(1)

An RFC must be “based on all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider all relevant evidence to determine the most a claimant can do despite impairments.

Ginsberg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-15(a)(3)

formulating an RFC, an ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence and determine the most that a plaintiff can do, despite that plaintiff’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

An ALJ must consider all relevant evidence to determine what a claimant can do despite their impairments.

Kittle v. Brady · filed 2023-03-15(a)(3)

formulating an RFC, an ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence and determine the most that a plaintiff can do, despite that plaintiff’s impairments.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations and is based on all relevant evidence in the record.

Hribar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-16(a)(1)

The RFC is a “determination of the most the claimant can still do despite his physical and mental limitations and is based on all relevant evidence in the claimant’s record.” Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 462 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)); accord Winston v. Berryhill, 755 F. App’x 395, 399 (5th Cir. 2018).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to assess all relevant medical and other evidence when determining residual functional capacity.

Zittle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-16(a)(1)

To properly determine RFC, the ALJ must assess all relevant medical and other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all record evidence, including the claimant’s testimony, treatment records, and medical opinions.

Eastman v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-17

A claimant's RFC is the most an individual can do despite the combined effects of all of his or her credible limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. An ALJ's RFC finding is based on all of the record evidence, including the claimant's testimony regarding symptoms and limitations, the claimant's medical treatment records, and the medical opinion evidence.

An RFC determination is proper when it is based on a fully and fairly developed record.

Delozier v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-17

Having reviewed the entire record, the Court finds that the ALJ made a proper RFC determination based on a fully and fairly developed record.

Section 404.1545(a) concerns what a claimant can still do; meeting physical therapy goals for sitting, standing, and walking does not establish the most the claimant can do.

Steele v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-17(a)

While these findings could be considered in determining the least she can sit, stand, or walk, this document cannot be appropriately construed as an opinion as to the most she can do.

Residual functional capacity findings must have evidentiary support for the limitations the ALJ assigns.

Warciski v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-20(a)(1)

The Commissioner points to no evidence, nor has the Court found any, to substantiate the limitations the ALJ articulated, including: Plaintiff’s ability to sit, stand, or walk during an 8-hour day; Plaintiff’s ability to climb ramps or stairs; crawl; handle or finger bilaterally; and avoid certain temperatures, vibrations, and hazards. The ALJ’s findings on Plaintiff’s limitations were thus not supported by substantial evidence.

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

Engel v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-20(a)(1)

A claimant’s “residual functional capacity is the most [he] can do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1) (same); see McCoy, 648 F.3d at 614 (“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.”); see also, e.g., Schmitt, 27 F.4th at 1360.

A residual functional capacity assessment may account for moderate limitations in attention, concentration, and responding to supervisors.

McDowell v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-20(a)(1)

In particular, the Court finds that the ALJ complied with SSR 96-8p and the RFC accounted for Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist’s opinion that Plaintiff was moderately limited in her abilities to maintain attention and concentration and to accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence, even when the ALJ finds every medical opinion unpersuasive.

Boyd v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-21(a)(1)

The regulations do not prohibit the ALJ from assessing the claimant’s RFC based on other record evidence when he finds all medical opinions to be unpersuasive.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations and requires consideration of all relevant evidence in the record.

Morales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-21(a)

The RFC determination is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations,” and is based upon all the relevant evidence in the case record. 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 do in a work setting despite her limitations.

Chiasson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-21(a)(1)

“A claimant’s RFC is ‘the most’ that the claimant can do in a work setting despite her limitations.” Schmitt v. Kijakazi, 27 F.4th 1353, 1360 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). ... Ultimately, the objective medical evidence in the record support the ALJ’s RFC finding.

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

Young v. SSA · filed 2023-06-26(a)(3)

The regulations require that an ALJ assess a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

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

KHALIL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-06-28(a)(1)

RFC and Step 4: Determine the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” (“RFC”), meaning “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

An ALJ must base a residual functional capacity assessment on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Croft v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-28(a)(3)

To determine RFC, the adjudicator is instructed to base the assessment on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R § 404.1545(a)(3). ... The ALJ’s insufficiently explained and erroneous evaluation of the evidence in this case has culminated in an unsupported RFC assessment.

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

GAVRIELIDIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-06-29(a)(1)

Therefore, in making an RFC determination, “the ALJ must consider all evidence before [her].” Burnett v. Commissioner of SSA, 220 F.3d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Given the ALJ’s thorough discussion of Plaintiff’s impairments, the Court finds no deficiency in her RFC analysis.

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

Hunter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-07(a)(1)

The RFC assessment is an evaluation of the most a claimant can still do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

A residual functional capacity assessment may account for difficulty regulating emotions through a limit on workplace changes when the evidence supports that limit.

Wiggin v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-14(a)

Contrary to Mr. Wiggin’s argument, the ALJ addressed his difficulty in regulating his emotions for purposes of assessing his residual functional capacity. ... The ALJ also incorporated the limitation from Dr. Jacobson’s opinion that he could only respond appropriately to infrequent changes in the work setting to address the limitation found by Dr. Gustavson. ... As such, Mr. Wiggin has not shown that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment was incorrect.

An assessment of residual functional capacity may address difficulty regulating emotions through a limit on changes in the work setting when the record supports that limit.

Wiggin v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-07-14

The ALJ also incorporated the limitation from Dr. Jacobson’s opinion that he could only respond appropriately to infrequent changes in the work setting to address the limitation found by Dr. Gustavson. ... As such, Mr. Wiggin has not shown that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment was incorrect.

Residual functional capacity reflects the most a claimant can do despite her limitations, so an ALJ need not adopt the narrower of two supported descriptions of her abilities.

Dunn v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-26

But that latter finding did not require the ALJ to limit his residual functional capacity determination to the more restricted of the two findings. An individual’s residual functional capacity represents “the most” that an individual can do in a work setting despite her impairments and resulting limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations caused by impairments and related symptoms.

Bednorz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-11(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [she] can still do” despite any physical or mental limitations caused by her “impairments and any related symptoms.”

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the claimant to provide evidence of an impairment and its severity and the ALJ to resolve evidentiary conflicts and determine residual functional capacity.

Martinez-Carrion v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-11(a)(3)

A claimant must provide the evidence of an impairment and its severity while the ALJ must resolve any evidentiary conflicts and determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see also Tremblay v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 676 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 1982) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. at 389).

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

(SS) Magat v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-12(a)

In determining residual functional capacity, the ALJ must assess what the plaintiff can still do in light of both physical and mental limitations.

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant medical and other evidence, and an ALJ cannot draw functional limitations from medical findings beyond a layperson’s competence without adequate support.

Fitts v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-09-12

In formulating an RFC, the ALJ must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” and all of the claimant’s “medically determinable impairments” about which the ALJ is aware. Id. § 404.1545(a)(2), (a)(3). ... In sum, the ALJ’s RFC findings were not based on substantial evidence and went well beyond “a layperson’s effort at commonsense functional capacity assessment,” which requires the ALJ’s findings to be vacated.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations and must be supported by substantial evidence.

Rodriguez v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-13(a)(1)

Principally at issue here is whether the ALJ’s finding that the plaintiff retained a maximum physical capacity to perform sedentary work is supported by substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (A plaintiff’s RFC is “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations”). The Court finds that the ALJ’s physical RFC formulation is not supported by substantial evidence, because the ALJ rejected the only two medical opinions in the record that assessed the plaintiff’s physical limitations, and otherwise misconstrued the objective medical records.

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

Prentkiewicz v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-09-15(a)

An RFC determination is an assessment of what a claimant is still able to do despite the claimant’s impairments and is based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

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

Plott v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-09-15(a)

An RFC determination is an assessment of what a claimant is still able to do despite the claimant’s impairments and is based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

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

DUNAWAY v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-09-18(a)(3)

But that ignores that the ALJ's determination must be "based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (emphasis added); see also SSR 96-8p (explaining the ALJ must make an RFC determination "based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record").

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite physical or mental limitations; the ALJ may formulate it from supported limitations in the record.

Fuentes v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-18(a)(1)

RFC is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite” his or her physical or mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Further, she properly credited the opinion of Dr. Andert, and incorporated the doctor’s posited limitations into both the hypothetical she posed to the vocational expert and the RFC she constructed. The ALJ thus did not err in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC and determining whether Plaintiff is disabled.

An ALJ must assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence in the claimant’s case file.

Trevethan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-18(a)(1)

An ALJ must assess a claimant’s RFC based on all the relevant evidence in a claimant’s case file.

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

Fleischman v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-19(a)(3)

At all times, 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). ... Here, the Court finds ALJ Treblin’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence. ALJ Treblin set forth his determination of Plaintiff’s RFC after reviewing the entirety of Plaintiff’s administrative record, inclusive of all medical opinions and prior administrative findings consistent with the requirements of 20 CFR 416.920(c).

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

Curtis v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-19(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to be based on relevant medical and other evidence in the record.

Warren v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-20(a)(3)

An RFC must be based on the relevant medical and other evidence of record.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to consider limitations caused by impairments and symptoms related to those impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Gardner v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-21(a)(1)

In creating the RFC, the ALJ must consider limitations from impairments and symptoms related to those impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a) requires the RFC assessment to account for limitations that are credible and supported by substantial evidence.

(SS) Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-21(a)

The Court concludes that the ALJ properly incorporated limitations into the RFC, including those related to Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome, that the ALJ found credible and supported by substantial evidence in the record.

An RFC assessment under § 404.1545 can be upheld when substantial evidence, including sufficient medical evidence, supports it.

Lowe v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-22(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a) requires the residual functional capacity assessment to account for all functional limitations caused by a claimant’s medically determinable impairments.

Joseph v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-22(a)

The RFC must contemplate all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments (“MDIs”), including all physical, mental, and sensory functional limitations caused by those MDIs.

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

Julian v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-25(a)(1)

The RFC is the most a claimant can do in a work setting despite the claimant’s mental and physical limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ, therefore, committed no error.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere ones such as obesity, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Lothridge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-25(a)(2)

When determining the RFC, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, mental and physical, even those that are non-severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2); see also Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 676 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). ... As such, the ALJ’s omission of any discussion of Lothridge’s obesity cannot be overlooked as mere harmless error in this instance. Consequently, the case will be remanded to the Commissioner for purposes of evaluating Lothridge’s obesity in combination with her other impairments and its effect on the RFC in accordance with SSR 19-2p.

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

Reaves v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-25

The RFC is what a claimant can do despite his or her limitations and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) describes residual functional capacity as the work-related abilities a claimant retains despite impairments.

Sanchez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-25(a)(1)

Residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is a multidimensional description of the work-related abilities a claimant retains despite his impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(c) permits an ALJ to account for moderate concentration limitations in the mental residual functional capacity by limiting the claimant to simple jobs.

Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-25(c)

Thus, by limiting Plaintiff to simple jobs, the ALJ did not err in failing to include moderate concentration limitations in the residual functional capacity.

An ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Lyles v. Saul · filed 2023-09-26(a)(2)

Both the regulations and prior administrative guidance confirm that an ALJ must consider even non-severe limitations when formulating the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment of what a claimant can still do despite impairments, based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Reeves v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-09-26(a)

An RFC determination is an assessment of what a claimant is still able to do despite the claimant’s impairments and is based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

An ALJ must assess all the evidence to determine what work a claimant can still do despite impairments.

(SS) Tamo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-26(a)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must assess all the evidence (including the descriptions of limita tion, and medical reports) to determine what capacity the claimant has for work despite the impairment(s).

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

Bright-Stones v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2023-09-26(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC represents “the most [she] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Grove v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-26(a)(3)

An ALJ assesses an applicant’s RFC “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider limitations from all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments that are not severe.

HEDMAN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-09-26(a)(2)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ “must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’” SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (S.S.A.), at *5 (July 2, 1996). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

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

(SS) Haggerty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-27(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s maximum capacity for work using all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations, and the claimant’s description of limitations.

McKinney v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-27(a)(1)

Rather, the ALJ must synthesize “all of the relevant evidence, including the medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and an individual’s own description of [his] limitations” to establish the claimant’s maximum capability for work.

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

Houk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-27(a)

The ALJ’s RFC assessment must be based on all the relevant evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence; an ALJ must adequately explain the omission of a supported social-interaction limitation.

Cole v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-27(a)

The ALJ’s RFC assessment must be based on all the relevant evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... In short, remand is warranted in this case because the ALJ found the opinions of Dr. Terry to be “reasonably consistent with the medical records” but failed to include the specific social interaction limitation she recommended or to offer an adequate explanation as to why he declined to include this limitation.

An ALJ must consider nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity and explain why identified mental impairments impose no limitation if none is included.

Bautista v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-29(a)(2)

The ALJ must consider all medical impairments when formulating the RFC, including those that are not severe. Id. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... The ALJ erred by failing to either include mental health limitations in the RFC or explain why Claimant’s mental health impairments were not limiting.