20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

Residual functional capacity reflects what a claimant can still do despite impairments and may be assessed using testimony, medical evidence, work history, and daily activities.

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

Overall, the ALJ’s analysis of Argrow’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence. He reviewed Argrow’s testimony, tr. 20, the medical evidence, tr. 20-22, the medical opinions described above, and Argrow’s work history and activities of daily living, tr. 22, in formulating a sedentary RFC with additional limitations for using her hands to finger and feel only occasionally.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must explain why she rejects a medical opinion’s task limitation and support any different limitation she adopts.

Meyers v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-29(a)(3)

Rather, on remand, the ALJ must explicitly analyze Drs. Taylor and Williamson’s recommended one- to two-step task limitation and support her reasons for either adopting the one- to two-step task limitation or rejecting it and imposing a different limitation.

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

Henderson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-29(a)(3)

An ALJ assesses an RFC based on all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... With all of this, the Court can trace the path of the ALJ’s reasoning and the ALJ’s RFC is supported by more than a mere scintilla of evidence.

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

GOWEN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-09-29(a)

There is no evidence that the ALJ played doctor in his RFC assessment. Rather, the ALJ determined the RFC "based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence," reasonably concluded that Plaintiff's vertigo had improved as concluded by the treating doctor, and still accounted for the condition in his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Residual functional capacity describes the most a claimant can still do in a work setting despite impairments.

Pearson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-06(a)(1)

The RFC assessment is a finding within the ALJ’s exclusive jurisdiction as to the most a claimant can still do in a work setting despite his impairments. ... Therefore, the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff's RFC is supported by substantial evidence and Plaintiff has failed to show otherwise.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as a claimant’s ability to do physical and mental work despite limitations from impairments.

Bair v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-08(a)

A claimant’s RFC is her ability to do physical and mental work despite limitations from her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

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

McCurdy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-08(a)(1)

A social security claimant’s RFC is an assessment of “the most [she] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (2012). The RFC assessment must be based on all the relevant evidence in a case file. ... Here, the ALJ explained why she found Plaintiff’s allegations about the intensity of her back pain to be inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence as described in SSR 16-3p, and the ALJ’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Fallon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-11(a)(3)

An ALJ must assess a claimant's RFC “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... This Court reviews the ALJ’s decision to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence; here, the ALJ considered all relevant evidence—including the evidence the prior ALJ neglected—and credited the opinions of Drs. Rabara and O’Connell with partial weight and limited Plaintiff’s RFC accordingly.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; additional limitations must have support in the record.

Demint v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-12(a)(1)

A plaintiff’s RFC is an assessment of “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (2012). ... The ALJ reasonably read the record as not supporting the additional limitations Plaintiff wants.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC determination based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Lamothe v. Social Security · filed 2023-12-18(a)(3)

The RFC determination is made “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1545(a) measures residual functional capacity by the most a claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis despite limitations.

Stilson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-12-20(a)

RFC is an assessment of the most a claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis despite his 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) Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-29(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.”

Section 404.1545(a)(1) permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the record as a whole without adopting a particular medical opinion.

(SS) Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-02(a)(1)

Such a responsibility does not result in the ALJ committing legal error when they assess an RFC that is consistent with the record.

Section 404.1545(c) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s mental limitations and whether they reduce the ability to perform past or other work.

Denny v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-02(c)

The ALJ was required to “assess the nature and extent of [plaintiff’s] mental limitations and restrictions” and whether they “reduce [her] ability to do past work and other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c). ... In sum, the ALJ reasonably evaluated the medical record alongside plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony and created a sufficient RFC to accommodate for plaintiff’s mental limitations.

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

Hubbard v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-04(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), 416.945(a) (2022).

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations; an RFC allowing simple and detailed tasks means the claimant can perform those tasks without limitations beyond those stated in the RFC.

Murphy v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-04(a)

Second, RFC is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (residual functional capacity). Because the RFC is defined this way, an ALJ’s finding that an individual has the ability to perform simple and detailed tasks means that the simple and detailed tasks can be performed without any limitations not specified in the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence; the assessment need not match any single medical opinion if substantial evidence supports it.

Spottswood v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-09(a)(3)

A claimant’s RFC is defined as “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations,” and is assessed by the ALJ based on all of the relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), (3); id. § 404.1546(c). ... It was the ALJ’s responsibility to assess Spottswood’s RFC, and the RFC “need not perfectly match any single medical opinion in the record, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.” Schillo, 31 F.4th at 78.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an adjudicator to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence in the case record, including treatment notes.

Jennings v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-10(a)(3)

Thus, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s treatment notes to formulate the RFC assessment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e) (“we will assess the residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in your case record”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3) (explaining that the adjudicator will assess the RFC based on all the relevant evidence in the case record); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(1),(4), 416.913(a)(1),(4) (explaining that evidence that can be considered includes objective medical evidence, such as medical signs and laboratory findings; as well as evidence from nonmedical sources, including the claimant, such as from forms contained in the administrative record).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider the entire record when determining residual functional capacity, including objective medical evidence and the claimant’s subjective allegations.

Menser v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-19(a)(3)

Throughout, the ALJ addressed both objective medical evidence and Claimant’s subjective allegations regarding his alleged impairments and associated limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3) (requiring same).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to assess all relevant evidence when determining residual functional capacity and to explain how the evidence supports the resulting limitations.

Campbell v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-19(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). ... Here, the ALJ’s manipulation RFC is not supported by substantial evidence because it is unclear how the ALJ translated the medical evidence into the RFC that Plaintiff is limited to frequent bilateral handling and fingering.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to determine residual functional capacity without a medical opinion when the record contains sufficient evidence.

Cain v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-19

And because the record contained sufficient evidence to determine the RFC, the ALJ had no obligation to further develop the record by obtaining an opinion.

Residual functional capacity represents the maximum work a claimant can perform based on all relevant evidence.

(SS) Mortera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-22(a)

Thus, it represents the maximum amount of work the claimant is able to perform based on all the relevant evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545 requires the Commissioner to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations, and the claimant’s description of limitations.

Wells v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-22

“The Commissioner must determine a claimant’s RFC based on all of the relevant evidence, including the medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and an individual’s own description of [her] limitations.”

To determine residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider impairments and related symptoms that may limit a claimant’s physical and mental abilities in a work setting.

Hsieh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-22(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using medical source statements, prior administrative medical findings, and other evidence in the record.

Kelling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-24(a)(3)

Administrative Law Judges make this finding based on a consideration of medical source statements, prior administrative medical findings, and all other evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c), 416.929, 416.945(a)(3), 416.946(c).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence, including descriptions of limitations and medical reports, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Smith v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-25(a)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must assess all the evidence (including the claimant’s and others’ descriptions of limitation, and medical reports) to determine what capacity the claimant has for work despite their impairment(s). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a); Laborin, 867 F.3d at 1153.

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

McClellan v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-26(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most the claimant can do despite her physical or mental limitations.

An ALJ may not assess residual functional capacity from a lay reading of medical evidence when the record does not support that assessment.

Henderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-29(a)

For these reasons, on this record, the ALJ was not permitted to rely on his own lay assessment of the medical evidence to assess Plaintiff’s RFC, nor is the Court able to conclude that express consideration of Dr. Clifford’s opinion was unnecessary on these facts.

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

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-29(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).

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

BREWINGTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-01-29(a)(1)

An RFC assessment is the most a claimant can do in a work setting despite the limitations caused by his or her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to reflect the claimant’s ability to sustain physical or mental work activities despite limitations.

Cochran v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-31(a)(1)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), an ALJ must devise an RFC that captures a claimant’s ability to do physical and/or mental work activities for a sustained period of time (i.e., sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy work), given the claimant’s limitations. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s RFC analysis was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to consider impairments and related symptoms that may limit what a claimant can do in a work setting when assessing residual functional capacity.

Pichardo v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-31(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider severe and non-severe impairments and the claimant’s ability to sustain physical or mental work.

Karlstrom v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-31

The RFC is a holistic assessment of the claimant’s medical impairments, both severe and non-severe, that evaluates the claimant’s ability to perform physical or mental work activities on a sustained basis, notwithstanding limitations for collective impairments. ... Ultimately, it is Plaintiffs burden to prove a more restrictive RFC than the RFC assessed by the ALJ, and Plaintiff fails to do so here.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite limitations and is based on all relevant evidence, rather than a single medical opinion.

(SS)Esparza Carbajal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-01(a)(1)

An RFC “is the most [one] can still do despite [his or her] limitations” and it is “based on all the relevant evidence in [one’s] case record,” rather than a single medical opinion or piece of evidence.

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

Quist v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-01(a)(3)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from all relevant medical and other evidence, including whether proposed limitations fit examination findings and the longitudinal record.

Maneri v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-05(a)(3)

“That determination is made ‘based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence,’ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3), and in doing so the ALJ must ‘evaluate the persuasiveness of medical opinions,’ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a)[.]” ... That is what the ALJ did here in concluding that Dr. Cunningham’s opinion does not include a rationale for certain limitations and is not entirely consistent with the examination results and the longitudinal record.

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

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-05(a)(3)

On the contrary, the ALJ must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Droddy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-07(a)(3)

In doing so, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, the medical opinions of the treating, examining, and non-examining medical sources. ... While the ALJ did not expressly use the phrases “good days” and “bad days” in the decision, the testimony he largely relies upon in making the RFC determination does specifically address the episodic nature of the impairment.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider severe and non-severe impairments and the claimant’s ability to sustain physical or mental work.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-07

The RFC is a holistic assessment of the claimant’s medical impairments, both severe and non-severe, that evaluates the claimant’s ability to perform physical or mental work activities on a sustained basis, notwithstanding limitations for collective impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

An ALJ need not include every impairment found severe at step two in the residual functional capacity assessment.

Hazel v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-07

It logically follows from this interpretation of “severe impairment” at Step Two that an ALJ need not account for every severe impairment in the RFC.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to include a limitation in the residual functional capacity assessment merely because the ALJ posed it in a hypothetical question to a vocational expert.

Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-08

Finally, Ms. Scott suggests in passing that the ALJ should have discussed and imposed a sit/stand option and social limitations in her RFC finding because some of her hypotheticals to the VE included these limitations. Her suggestion has no basis in law and it ignores the reality that, when posing various hypotheticals to the VE, the ALJ may not yet know what a claimant’s RFC is. Hypotheticals are just that––hypotheticals.

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

(SS) Garza v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-09(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.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

An RFC must be supported by record evidence for the claimant’s specific functional limitations.

Spencer v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-12(a)(1)

Without a medical opinion or other evidence supporting Plaintiff’s RFC, it is unclear how the ALJ concluded Plaintiff could, in particular, “stand/walk for 4 hours in an 8-hour day.” AR 16. The Court, therefore, cannot find the RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must obtain medical expertise to interpret an MRI report rather than interpret it unaided.

Durham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-13

Having opinions from medical experts is necessary to reach an RFC determination. An ALJ, who has no medical training, would not be equipped to interpret an MRI report unaided by a medical expert.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to reflect the tasks a claimant can perform in light of her limitations and all relevant evidence.

Lozano v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-15(a)(1)

An RFC measures the tasks a person can perform given her limitations based on “all the relevant evidence” in the administrative record. ... In any event, the ALJ adequately explained how the evidence of record, including Elizabeth’s reported daily activities, objective medical evidence, and opinion evidence, supports the mental RFC she assessed.

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

Capezza v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-15(a)(1)

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

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and is assessed at steps four and five.

Gebert v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-16(a)(1)

Making these determinations required the ALJ to assess Gebert’s RFC, which is the most a claimant “can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a) permits an ALJ to assess mental residual functional capacity using objective medical evidence, the claimant’s activities, and medical findings and opinions.

Ascher v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-20(a)

The ALJ here sufficiently grounded his RFC finding in the objective medical evidence, Ascher’s reported activities, and the prior administrative medical findings and medical opinions.

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

TIMBERMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-02-20(a)(1)

Even assuming, without deciding, that any error at step two in failing to find Plaintiff’s medically determinable mental impairment of major depressive disorder was harmless, the ALJ’s errors at step four in considering the evidence regarding Plaintiff’s mental impairment and in crafting the RFC were not. A claimant’s RFC is the most that the claimant can do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

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

Grey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-21(a)

The RFC is an ALJ’s assessment, based on all relevant evidence, of a claimant’s ability to work, despite her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). Stated differently, it is the most a claimant can do, notwithstanding her physical and mental limitations.

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

Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-21(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to reflect a claimant’s ability to sustain physical and mental work despite her limitations.

Freeland v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-22(a)(1)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), an ALJ must devise an RFC that captures a claimant’s ability to do physical and/or mental work activities for a sustained period of time (i.e., sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy work), given the claimant’s limitations.

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

Hallman Sr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-26(a)(1)

The RFC is the most someone “can do despite their mental and physical limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) and § 416.945(a)(1); SSR 96-8p(5). ... The ALJ sufficiently addressed Christopher H.’s extensive medical history, along with his alleged symptoms, and built a logical bridge to support his RFC finding.

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

Williams v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-02-27(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most the claimant can do despite limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

An ALJ may formulate residual functional capacity from the entire record without adopting any one medical opinion.

Coughlin v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-28

The ALJ was entitled to formulate Coughlin’s RFC in the context of the entire record and was not required to conform the RFC to any one specific medical opinion.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; an assessment may account for medication side effects supported by the record.

Spires v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-04(a)(1)

An RFC assessment represents “the most” a claimant “can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s RFC assessment with regard to the loose bowel movements and diarrhea side effects of Plaintiff’s medication is supported by substantial evidence.

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

MCGUIRE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-08-12(a)(1)

An RFC is the most a claimant can still do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Strong v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-12(a)

A claimant’s residual functional capacity refers to the most the claimant can still do despite her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a) (2023).

An RFC limited to simple instructions and tasks can account for moderate limitations in maintaining a routine and regular attendance.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-12

Thus, contrary to plaintiff's arguments, the ALJ properly incorporated plaintiff's moderate limitations related to sustaining an ordinary routine and regular attendance at work by limiting plaintiff to “simple instructions and directions,” “simple tasks,” and “simple, repetitive work-related stress.”

Section 404.1545(a)(1) assesses the most work a claimant can physically and mentally perform despite impairments.

Garcia v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-13(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is an assessment of the most work the claimant can physically and mentally perform, not the least.

Moderate mental limitations may be accounted for in a residual functional capacity assessment by limiting work to simple, routine tasks without production or pace quotas.

Wyld v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-15

However, the argument is simply incorrect: district courts regularly conclude that moderate mental limitations may be accounted for by limiting the RFC to simple, routine tasks that do not require production or pace quotas.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; the assessment must account for the evidence and medical opinions.

Corral v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-15(a)(1)

The RFC assessment “is the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Here, the ALJ adequately assessed the evidence before him, ultimately arriving at an RFC that is supported by substantial evidence.

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) Alvarez Marin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-16(a)(1)

The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [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) assesses residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations, based on all relevant record evidence.

Harrington v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-19(a)(1)

Before going from step three to step four, the Commissioner evaluates the claimant’s residual functional capacity by determining the most the claimant can still do despite his physical and mental limitations based on all relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

LARKIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-08-20(a)

RFC is defined as that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his impairments.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to base the residual functional capacity finding on medical source statements, prior administrative medical findings, and all other evidence in the record.

McIntosh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-21(a)(3)

Administrative Law Judges make this finding based on a consideration of medical source statements, prior administrative medical findings, and all other evidence in the case record.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence in the claimant’s record.

Valderrama v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-21(a)

An ALJ determines a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence” within the claimant’s case record. Id. ... The ALJ’s RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence from Dr. Trimba’s August 12, 2019, medical opinion and her physical examination of Claimant.

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but a non-severe impairment need not produce an express RFC limitation when it causes no significant work limitation.

Howard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-09(a)(2)

The ALJ was not required to expressly include any limitations in the RFC based on Plaintiffs non-severe mental conditions.

Residual functional capacity describes a claimant’s work-related abilities despite the claimant’s limitations.

Haines v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-15(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).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) measures residual functional capacity by what a claimant can still do despite limitations; symptoms need not disappear for the claimant to perform work within that capacity.

(SS)Keo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-22(a)(1)

Importantly, the RFC is not the most one can do while remaining symptom free; it is “the most you can still do despite your limitations.”

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) Nichols v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-26(a)(1)

The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [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 requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments and relevant evidence when assessing the most a claimant can do despite their limitations.

Goss v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-28

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. ... In formulating plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ reasonably relied on persuasive medical opinions and the overall record to determine the most plaintiff could do, despite her limitations.

Mild limitations in the paragraph B criteria need not be included in the residual functional capacity, and an ALJ need not expressly explain their omission.

Mockler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-30(a)

Despite Plaintiff’s contention, the persuasive precedent demonstrates that ALJs are not obligated to include mental limitations in the RFC when they find “mild” limitations in the paragraph B criteria, nor are they required to expressly explain why mild paragraph B limitations are not included in the RFC.

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) Ruby Ann Meneley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-03(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 assesses residual functional capacity using relevant medical and other evidence, including the claimant’s pain testimony, rather than a limitation posed only as a hypothetical to a vocational expert.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-04(a)(3)

Instead, in determining Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ correctly considered the persuasiveness of Plaintiff’s pain testimony, not the VE’s testimony regarding a hypothetical limitation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (ALJ assesses RFC based on all relevant medical and other evidence); § 404.1529(a), (c)(3) (ALJ considers a claimant’s pain testimony in evaluating intensity and persistence of symptoms).

An ALJ need not include cane use in a residual functional capacity assessment when the claimant does not show that a cane was medically required.

Rivera-Ostolaza v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-05(a)(1)

Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to establish that the ALJ erred in assessing the need for a cane because Plaintiff fails to point to evidence suggesting that a cane was medically required.

Section 404.1545 requires the residual functional capacity assessment to consider all impairments, including those that are not severe.

Lewis v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-09-06(a)(2)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (explaining that, in determining residual functional capacity, all impairments are considered, including impairments that are not severe). Because the ALJ considered all of Lewis’ medical history, including her headaches, the ALJ properly found Lewis’ RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires residual functional capacity to reflect the most a claimant can do despite limitations, assessed using all relevant evidence.

Russom v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2024-09-06(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. ... After reviewing the record as a whole, the Court finds remand necessary so that the ALJ can more fully and fairly develop the record regarding Plaintiff’s mental impairments.

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

Northcutt v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-06(a)

RFC is defined as “what [the claimant] can still do” despite his “physical or mental limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... In this case, after considering all this evidence, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff retained the capacity to perform light work, with significant modifications tailored to her credible limitations. In so doing, he did not substantially err.

Residual functional capacity must be based on relevant medical and other evidence in the record.

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

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

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the upper limit of a claimant’s ability given mental and physical impairments.

Donges v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-09(a)

The RFC is defined as the upper limit of a claimant’s ability given the claimant’s mental and physical impairments.

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

Selke v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-10(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a) measures residual functional capacity by the work a claimant can still do despite impairments.

Warren v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-11(a)

The ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s work abilities represented “the most” Plaintiff could do in a work setting. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). The Court finds nothing erroneous in the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence and known medically determinable impairments when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Gage v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-09-11(a)(2), (a)(3)

To make that assessment, 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). ... The ALJ examined the medical evidence in the record, considered Gage’s testimony, found Dr. Goldstein’s opinion persuasive, explained why he found other opinions unpersuasive, and assessed Gage’s residual functional capacity based on Dr. Goldstein’s opinion. As such, Gage has not shown any error in the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider all relevant medical and other evidence and all known medically determinable impairments.

Leah Gage v. P Martin O’Malley, Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-11(a)(2), (a)(3)

To make that assessment, 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. ... The ALJ examined the medical evidence in the record, considered Gage’s testimony, found Dr. Goldstein’s opinion persuasive, explained why he found other opinions unpersuasive, and assessed Gage’s residual functional capacity based on Dr. Goldstein’s opinion. As such, Gage has not shown any error in the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite his limitations; unsupported limitations need not be included in the assessment.

Wilson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-09-12(a)(1)

The RFC is the most a claimant can do despite his limitations. ... The Court notes that Plaintiff does not cite to any evidence in the record that found Plaintiff requires off-task time or absenteeism but plainly asserts that the record infers that these limitations are required to accommodate Plaintiff’s pain [Id. at 9]. ... Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) calls for assessing the most a claimant can do despite impairments based on all relevant evidence.

Barrera v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-13(a)

The RFC is an ALJ’s assessment, based on all relevant evidence, of a claimant’s ability to work, despite her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... After careful review of the record evidence as a whole under the “exceedingly deferential” standard of review required by law, the Court concludes that ALJ’s RFC was supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity must reflect how a claimant’s medical impairments affect her ability to work, including limitations supported by medical opinions.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-16(a)(1)

A residual functional capacity (RFC) finding involves a detailed assessment of how a claimant’s medical impairments affect her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The ALJ erred in determining Claimant’s RFC by failing to properly weight, and thus incorporate into the RFC, the opinions of Drs. De Ocampo, Saperstein, Casper, and Carlton.

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

Gossett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-16(a)(3)

ALJs make this RFC finding based on a consideration of medical source statements, prior administrative medical findings, and all other evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c).

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the upper limit of a claimant’s ability given their mental and physical impairments.

Higgins v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-16(a)

The RFC is defined as the upper limit of a claimant’s ability given the claimant’s mental and physical impairments.

An ALJ must consider all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, but need not include limitations unsupported by the evidence.

Nicholas v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-17(a)(3)

An ALJ must review all the relevant medical and other evidence in the record when determining a claimant’s RFC but is not required to include limitations that are not supported by the evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite limitations; an ALJ may omit a manipulative limitation when the evidence supports that finding.

Flynn v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-17(a)(1)

The Court finds that the ALJ rationally interpreted the medical evidence relating to Plaintiff’s hands in concluding that no manipulative limitation was indicated.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity; an RFC based on unexplained interpretation of raw medical evidence lacks substantial evidentiary support.

Carness v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-17

In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence, such as all symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... Here, the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence. While the ALJ summarized the medical evidence, it is not entirely clear how the ALJ then translated that evidence into an RFC because he did not set forth his reasoning.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on the relevant record evidence; supported findings need not include additional limitations.

Polk v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-17(a)(1)

When determining the RFC, the ALJ examines all medical evidence in the record. ... Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the RFC.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; the ALJ may assess it without relying on an examining physician’s opinion.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-18(a)(1)

The RFC assessment “is the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... However, “the task of determining a [Plaintiff’s RFC] and ability to work rests with the [ALJ], not a doctor.” Moore v. Soc. Sec. Admin, Comm’r, 649 F. App’x 941, 945 (11th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Additionally, there were numerous other opinions of record that the ALJ considered in assigning the RFC. See Tr. at 757-59. The ALJ did not err in this regard.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to base residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence, including medical evidence, daily activities, symptoms, and treatment.

Boose v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-18(a)(3)

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

An ALJ must assess all evidence bearing on a claimant’s capacity for work, and the resulting RFC must be supported by substantial evidence.

Hernandez v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-18(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). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC assessment lacks the support of substantial evidence and is a result of legal error.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for limitations supported by the record.

Johnson v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-19

A plaintiff’s RFC is the measure of the “the most [they] can still do despite [their] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... As discussed above, the Court has already concluded that the ALJ appropriately tailored Plaintiff’s RFC to accommodate limitations substantially supported by the record.

Section 404.1545(a) measures what a claimant can do despite impairments through a function-by-function assessment based on relevant evidence.

Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-23(a)

The RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite the limitations imposed by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). It is a “function-by-function assessment based upon all of the relevant evidence of an individual’s ability to do work-related activities,” Id., and must be supported by substantial evidence. ... In this case, the ALJ supported his RFC determination with substantial evidence and accurately characterized the medical evidence.

An RFC adequately accounts for a limitation in persistence when it excludes production-rate pace tasks and gives assembly-line work as an example.

Reese v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-23(a)

By contrast, the ALJ in this case gave content to the term she actually used (“production rate-pace”) by specifying “for example, no assembly line work.” The ALJ’s RFC adequately considered Plaintiff’s Paragraph B limitation in persistence.

Residual functional capacity describes the most a claimant can still do despite her limitations, and the assessment must have support in the record.

Armstrong-Castrodale v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-24(a)(1)

The ALJ cited to ample evidence in support of Plaintiff’s mental residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to base a claimant’s residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence, including medical records, medical opinions, and the claimant’s descriptions of limitations.

Gonzalez-Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-24(a)(1)

When formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must base his determination on all relevant evidence, including a plaintiff’s medical record, the medical opinions, and a claimant’s descriptions of his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 404.1546.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for supported functional limitations, including the extent of a claimant’s atypical restroom needs.

Minton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-18(a)(1)

The ALJ seemed to accept Plaintiff has atypical restroom needs, but then elected not to include any of them in the RFC. Given that Dr. Ditz’s opinion directly relates to the timeframe at issue, and in light of the evidence during the timeframe that supports his opinion, the ALJ’s partial discounting of Dr. Ditz’s opinion and the ultimate RFC are not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and requires consideration of limitations from all impairments.

Wanska v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-18(a)(1)

The RFC assessment “is the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... The ALJ’s Decision reflects thoughtful consideration of the mental impairments and need not be disturbed.

Section 404.1545 assigns the ALJ responsibility for determining residual functional capacity from the evidence as a whole.

Levelston-Walker, Sr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-19(a)(1), (a)(3)

It is the ALJ, not a physician, who is charged with the responsibility of determining a claimant’s RFC based on the evidence as a whole.

An ALJ may rely on a consulting physician’s translation of moderate concentration, persistence, or pace limitations into an RFC for simple tasks.

Wade v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-19(a)(1)

Here, Dr. Tin translated plaintiff’s moderate limits in CPP to an RFC for simple tasks with simple instructions, R. 69, 87, and the ALJ did not err in relying on that translation.

An ALJ who rejects every medical opinion cannot base the residual functional capacity on a lay interpretation of medical data and must obtain expert input to fill the evidentiary gap.

BOISVERT v. O'MALLEY · filed 2025-03-20(a)

The Court agrees with Michael that the ALJ improperly filled an evidentiary gap in this case with his own lay interpretation of the medical data, and this error requires remand.

Section 404.1545 requires the residual functional capacity assessment to account for limitations supported by the medical record or explain their omission.

Monday v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-20

But the narratives failed to encapsulate and translate the moderate checkbox findings, and the ALJ did not explain why she omitted those findings, thus producing an RFC that failed to incorporate all of Ms. Monday’s limitations supported by the medical record.

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

Hennemann v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-03-24(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most the claimant can do despite their limitations, and an ALJ must assess it based on all relevant evidence in the claimant’s case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The ALJ’s decision demonstrates that he evaluated all the medical and other evidence in Hennemann’s case record and adequately explained his reasons for the weight given to the evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an assessment of the most a claimant can do despite limitations; an RFC determination supported by a fully and fairly developed record is proper.

Huskey v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-24(a)(1)

Having reviewed the entire record, the Court finds that the ALJ made a proper RFC determination based on a fully and fairly developed record, and that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; the assessment need not adopt a medical opinion.

Hernandez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-24

There is no requirement that the ALJ consider or find at least one medical opinion persuasive for substantial evidence to support his RFC assessment. Nor is an ALJ required to adopt a specific physician’s assessment. Instead, the ALJ is responsible for weighing all the evidence and determining a claimant’s capacity for work.

An ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination is proper when based on a fully and fairly developed record and supported by substantial evidence.

Rubottom-Langeneckert v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-24(a)(1)

Having reviewed the entire record, the Court finds that the ALJ made a proper RFC determination based on a fully and fairly developed record, and the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ must assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence in the claimant’s record and cannot infer functional limits solely from the ALJ’s own interpretation of medical findings.

Berger v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-24(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most he can do despite his limitations, and an ALJ must assess it based on all relevant evidence in the claimant’s case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ improperly inferred functional limitations related to Plaintiff’s abilities to lift, carry, and reach overhead from the ALJ’s own interpretation of physical examination findings and diagnostic test results set forth in the medical record.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider relevant medical and other evidence about the limiting effects of a claimant’s impairments and symptoms.

Acevedo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-24(a)(1)

An ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence, including evidence as to what a person can do in a work setting despite physical or mental limitations caused by the person’s impairments and related symptoms. ... The ALJ’s conclusory reasoning and failure to fully evaluate Acevedo’s fibromyalgia symptoms according to the criteria of SSR 12-2p requires reversal and remand of her decision.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence, including limitations associated with fibromyalgia.

Knight v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-25(a)(1)-(4)

The ALJ bases his or her determination on all relevant evidence in the case record. ... Instead, the Court agrees with the Claimant’s broader contention that the ALJ’s RFC did not appropriately account for Claimant’s fibromyalgia or the nature of fibromyalgia generally.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to base residual functional capacity on all relevant medical and other evidence without being bound by any particular medical opinion.

Hornback v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-25

When making a determination, the ALJ is not bound by any particular medical opinion but should base a claimant’s RFC on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”

A mental residual functional capacity finding is supported when the ALJ considers the entire record and substantial evidence supports the claimant’s ability to function despite her limitations.

Paranteau v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-26(a)(1)

In reaching the above mental residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ considered the entire record, including Plaintiff’s conservative treatment, objective medical findings, medical source observations, prior administrative medical findings, Plaintiff’s own testimony and complaints, and her reported hobbies and activities. ... Plaintiff failed to meet her burden and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s mental residual functional capacity determination.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite impairments; the assessment must account for limitations supported by the evidence.

Johnson v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-26(a)

“RFC” is defined in the Regulations as that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination. ... The ALJ adequately assessed Plaintiff’s potential limitations based on each piece of relevant evidence.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations caused by physical or mental impairments.

Reedy v. King · filed 2025-04-15

A claimant’s RFC is the most that he or she can do despite the limitations caused by physical or mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the work a claimant can sustain regularly despite limitations.

Heath-Fitzgerald v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-16

The RFC is the most Claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, 20 C.F.R. §416.945. ... Therefore, the Court finds the ALJ supported his conclusions, citing to objective medical evidence, conservative treatment, efficacy of medication, and the conflicts between Claimant’s testimony and the medical evidence and accounted for all of Claimant’s reported symptoms in the RFC that were supported by the record.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence without a medical opinion addressing each specific functional limitation.

Halstead v. Dudek · filed 2025-04-17(a)

Plaintiff incorrectly suggests that the ALJ’s RFC is not supported by substantial evidence unless there is a medical opinion which addresses his specific functional limitations. Although the RFC must be supported by some medical evidence, “there is no requirement that an RFC finding be supported by a specific medical opinion.” Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir. 2016). Instead, the RFC must be determined by the ALJ based on all the relevant evidence, which includes his subjective symptoms, his testimony, the medical evidence, and his daily activities.

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

Parmer v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-28(a)(1)

The RFC is the most a claimant can still do despite their limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a) requires the residual functional capacity assessment to account for supported physical and mental limitations, including limitations on interaction with others.

(SS) Christenson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-28(a)

In determining residual functional capacity, the ALJ must assess what the plaintiff can still do in light of both physical and mental limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a) (2003); see also Valencia v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (residual functional capacity reflects current “physical and mental capabilities”). ... Thus, while there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s general conclusion that Plaintiff is limited in his ability to interact with others, which would include the public, the Court finds that the ALJ failed to cite substantial evidence supporting exclusion of limitations in interactions with supervisors and co-workers.

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

Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-30(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.

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

(SS)Fiester v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-30(a)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a).

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

MCCURLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-04-30(a)(1)

A plaintiff’s RFC is the most he or she can still do despite his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The RFC is based on all the relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1)-(3), 416.945(a)(1)-(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to base residual functional capacity on relevant record evidence, including medical opinions, but does not require the finding to repeat a physician’s opinion verbatim.

Briggs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-07(a)(1)

Although an ALJ must determine the RFC based on the relevant evidence in the record, including medical opinion evidence, an ALJ is “not required to recite the medical opinion of a physician verbatim in [her] residual functional capacity finding.” Poe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 342 F. App’x 149, 157 (6th Cir. 2009); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 404.1546(c).

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

(SS) Yang v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-07(a)

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

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider medical evidence and the claimant’s subjective symptoms and limitations.

Guerriero v. O'Malley · filed 2025-05-14

Specifically, the ALJ must consider objective medical facts, diagnoses, and medical opinions based on such facts, as well as a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms, including pain and descriptions of other limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... Therefore, the ALJ’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is affirmed.

An RFC finding is permissible when the ALJ considers all medical evidence, appropriately analyzes medical opinions, and reaches a finding consistent with the record.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-15

As long as the ALJ considers all the medical evidence and appropriately analyzes the medical opinions, an RFC consistent with the record is not error.

An ALJ need not include previously reported limitations in a claimant’s residual functional capacity when new evidence supports reassessing those limitations.

Johnson v. Bisignano · filed 2025-05-19(a)(1)

In other words, given the new evidence presented on remand, the ALJ was not required to include in Johnson’s RFC the limitations reported by Dr. Salk and Dr. Van Eerd.

An ALJ must base a residual functional capacity assessment on all relevant medical and other evidence, including the claimant’s statements about limitations.

Montgomery v. Dudek · filed 2025-05-19(a)(3)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must base findings on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including a claimant’s testimony and other statements regarding the limitations imposed by his impairments.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC finding that does not exactly match a medical opinion when the ALJ considers all medical evidence and appropriately analyzes the opinions.

Brennan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-27

As long as the ALJ considers all the medical evidence and appropriately analyzes the medical opinions, an RFC consistent with the record is not erroneous.

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

Joseph v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-27(a)(1)

When an ALJ finds that the claimant has severe impairments that do not meet or equal the Listed Impairments, he or she must determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is the most a claimant can do in a work setting notwithstanding her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... This RFC conclusion was consistent with those of state medical consultants, as well as the record as a whole.

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

Rice v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-28(a)

The ALJ incorporated many aspects of Plaintiffs testimony into the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (RFC is the most an individual can do in a work setting despite her limitations).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all medical and nonmedical evidence, including descriptions of the claimant’s limitations from the claimant and others.

Munguia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-29(a)(3)

An ALJ must consider all medical and nonmedical evidence, including descriptions and observations of the claimant’s limitations provided by the claimant, family, friends, and others. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), (e); Laborin v. Berryhill, 867 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 2017). ... By assigning no weight to any of the medical opinions concerning S.M.’s physical impairments, the ALJ effectively—and impermissibly—substituted his own interpretation of the medical evidence in place of the medical opinions when determining S.M.’s physical RFC.

An ALJ must account for limitations in a medical opinion found persuasive when assessing residual functional capacity, or explain why those limitations were omitted.

(SS) Chamberlin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-29(a)

Because the ALJ found Dr. Toailoa’s opinion persuasive, the ALJ was required to account for the moderate limitations in the residual functional capacity or provide an explanation why she did not accept them.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s remaining ability to work despite impairments using all relevant evidence.

Hernandez v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-05-30(a)(1)

But we cannot say that the ALJ unreasonably assessed the severity of Hernandez’s work-related limitation by finding he could “work alone” with no public interaction, only incidental coworker interaction, and occasional interaction with supervisors.

Residual functional capacity describes the work-related abilities a person retains despite limitations.

Henson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-30(a)(1)

The RFC determination sets out an individual’s work-related abilities despite his or her limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) calls for the ALJ to consider medical source statements, prior administrative medical findings, and all other record evidence when determining residual functional capacity.

Robbins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-04(a)(3)

The ALJ make this finding based on a consideration of medical source statements, prior administrative medical findings, and all other evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c), 416.929, 416.945(a)(3), 416.946(c).

Residual functional capacity must account for work limitations caused by a claimant’s impairments, including necessary restroom breaks.

Sides-Allen v. Bisignano · filed 2025-06-09(a)(1)

Additionally, the ALJ failed to include in the RFC the need for hourly restroom breaks, which could last up to 30 minutes. According to the VE, this would make it impossible for Plaintiff to meet the demands of competitive employment.

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

Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-17(a)(1)

The RFC determination sets out an individual’s work-related abilities despite his or her limitations.

Section 404.1545 allows moderate limitations in regulating emotions, controlling behavior, and maintaining well-being to be reflected in an RFC limiting a claimant to simple tasks, limited social interaction, and simple changes.

Catlin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-18

Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, the ALJ’s RFC limiting Plaintiff to simple, routine tasks, occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public, and occasional, simple changes, is consistent with Dr. Ippolito’s moderate limitations in regulating emotions, controlling behavior, and maintaining well- being.

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

Bell v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-18(a)(1)

The ALJ’s finding is proper because the RFC “is the most you can do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545 requires cane use to be included in a claimant’s residual functional capacity only when the cane is medically necessary.

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

But the ALJ needed to incorporate the cane use into the RFC only if she found it was medically necessary.

Residual functional capacity reflects the most a claimant can do despite limitations; an assessment based on mischaracterized treatment evidence may lack substantial evidentiary support.

SORANNO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-06-23(a)(1)

Accordingly, the ALJ’s statement that Plaintiff testified that he was not undergoing any current treatment mischaracterized both the hearing testimony and the medical evidence. See id. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective statements or the physical RFC determination.

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

Smith v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-24(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most the claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... Contrary to Smith’s assertions, the ALJ carefully weighed the evidence in the record and provided an RFC supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity represents the most a claimant can do despite her limitations or restrictions.

Klarner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-25(a)(1)

The RFC represents the most that a claimant can do despite her limitations or restrictions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

(SS) Compean v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-27(a)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); id. § 416.945(a).

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess all evidence when determining what work a claimant can still do despite impairments.

(SS) Shimp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-30(a)

In determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity, an ALJ must assess all the evidence (including the descriptions of limitation, and medical reports) to determine what capacity the claimant has for work despite the impairment(s). ... Here, the ALJ properly considered the opinions of the State agency psychological consultants and found the opinions partially persuasive.