20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC to account for medically determinable impairments, but a limitation for an assistive device need only be included when supported by substantial evidence.

Melhus v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-02

The RFC must contemplate all medically determinable impairments, including those which the ALJ found non-severe, and evaluate all the relevant testimony, including the opinions of medical providers and the subjective symptom testimony set forth by the claimant. ... Only those limitations which are supported by substantial evidence must be incorporated into the RFC. ... Given the conflicting medical evidence, as well as the testimony from both Plaintiff and his mother, the ALJ did not err by not including a limitation for use of an assistive device into the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess the most a claimant can do despite impairments, considering all relevant medical and other evidence, including nonsevere impairments and the claimant’s testimony.

Buoy v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-03

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 his limitations.

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

MESSINA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-07-07(a)

In determining an individual’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence—including “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.” Fargnoli v. Halter, 247 F.3d 34, 41 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)).

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to include symptoms of a nonmedically determinable impairment in residual functional capacity; including them is harmless when the finding is supported by substantial evidence.

Kelley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-10

Consequently, the ALJ was not required to include Plaintiff’s ADD symptoms in the residual functional capacity. But it did. This was, however, a harmless error.

Section 404.1545 measures residual functional capacity by the most a claimant can do in the workplace on a sustained basis despite impairments.

Day v. SSA · filed 2025-07-10

An individual’s RFC reflects the most he can do in the workplace on a sustained basis, despite his impairments.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations and must be based on relevant record evidence; an assessed sitting capacity requires an explanation supported by that evidence.

THOMPSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-07-15(a)(1)

RFC is the most work that a claimant can do despite his or her limitations, and it is “based on all the relevant evidence in [a] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The Court finds ALJ Costa’s determination that Plaintiff could “sit up to 6 hours per day but no more than one half hour at a time, and then would need to stand/shift positions for 2-3 minutes,” is not supported by substantial evidence. ... ALJ Costa explicitly rejected the findings of Drs. Nicastro and Phillips but then adopted their conclusions, in direct contrast to Plaintiff’s testimony, with no further explanation.

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

Amado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-15(a)(1)

RFC is the most a claimant can do despite limitations and is assessed based on all relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Febo v. O'Malley · filed 2025-07-18(a)(1)

RFC is defined as “that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairment(s).”

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

Price v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-18

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) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions, when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Johnston v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-18(a)

When determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence including medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... Remand is necessary for the ALJ to provide further explanation of her RFC assessment.

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

LECHLEITNER v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2025-07-22(a)(1)

Before addressing each of Plaintiff’s specific challenges, I broadly agree with the Commissioner that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence. The Social Security regulations explain that a claimant’s RFC is the “most” that they can do despite their limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess all the evidence when determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity; the assessment must have evidentiary support.

Tusitino v. O'Malley · filed 2025-07-22(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 ALJ erred by assessing plaintiff’s RFC without support from the medical opinion evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to base residual functional capacity on all relevant medical and other evidence; a directly corresponding medical opinion is not required.

Warfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-24(a)(3)

An ALJ bases their RFC determination on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... An ALJ is not required to base an RFC on a medical opinion.

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

Shepherd v. SSA · filed 2025-08-18(a)(1)

An ALJ’s RFC finding is the ALJ’s ultimate determination of what a claimant can still do despite his or her physical and mental limitations.

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

Leffler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-19(a)

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

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

Penley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-21(a)(3)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as a claimant’s ability to sustain physical and mental work activities despite limitations.

(SS) Baker Riojas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-21(a)(1)

Residual functional capacity (RFC), defined generally as the claimant’s ability to perform physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite his or her limitations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1), is relevant to both the fourth and fifth steps of the analysis.

Section 404.1545 requires residual functional capacity to be assessed from relevant record evidence, including medical history, medical source statements, and descriptions by the claimant and others.

(SS) Meas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-21(a)

RFC is assessed based on the relevant evidence in the case record, including the medical history, medical source statements, and subjective descriptions and observations made by the claimant, family, neighbors, friends, or other persons. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 404.1545(a)(3). ... She is not entitled to relief on this claim.

An ALJ’s adoption of state agency medical opinions can provide substantial evidence for a residual functional capacity assessment.

Davis v. O'Malley · filed 2025-08-22

Absent a successful challenge to an ALJ’s assessment of the medical opinion evidence, an ALJ’s adoption of the state agency medical opinions constitutes substantial evidence to support the RFC.

Residual functional capacity must account for evidence of an impairment’s effect on the claimant’s ability to sustain work.

Quisenberry v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-22(a)(1)

The ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff is capable of light work with limitations is not supported by substantial evidence.

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

Ranaghan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-22(a)(1)

The RFC determination describes “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [their] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant record evidence rather than a single medical opinion.

(SS) Crellin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-22(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.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to determine what a claimant can do in a work setting despite restrictions caused by impairments and related symptoms.

Hagins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-26(a)(1)

To do so, an ALJ must decide based upon all of the pertinent evidence before her what a claimant can do in a work setting despite any physical or mental restrictions caused by the claimant's impairments and related symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including an investigative report and the claimant’s testimony.

Castillo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-27(a)(3)

But for disability claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, the ALJ examines “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (emphasis added), and need “not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight” to “any medical opinion[].” Id. § 404.1520c(a). Consistent with the new regulations, the ALJ considered multiple sources of evidence—including the disability report and Gonzalez Castillo’s own testimony—to discount Dr. Catano’s and Dr. Feria’s opinions.

An ALJ may determine the work-related functions in a claimant’s residual functional capacity from the record as a whole when medical opinions differ.

MCGRATH v. COLVIN · filed 2025-08-28(a)(1)

Under those circumstances, the ALJ could determine what work-related functions were supported by the record as a whole.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including medical source statements about what the claimant can still do, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Miner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-29(a)(3)

“In making the RFC determination, the ALJ must consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including any statements about what the claimant can still do provided by any medical sources.”

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to state what a claimant can still do despite exertional and nonexertional limitations, rather than the conditions under which the claimant would function best.

Trager v. Malley · filed 2025-08-29(a)(1)

The ALJ is tasked with articulating what a plaintiff can still do despite existing exertional and nonexertional limitations.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations, based on all evidence in the record.

Gelman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-03(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC represents the most they can do despite any limitations based on all evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity is assessed from all relevant medical and other evidence; it need not be based on a particular medical source’s opinion.

Lette v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-09(a)(3)

But “the ALJ is under no obligation to base [his] [RFC] assessment on any particular medical source’s opinion” because “the determination of [RFC] is not a medical opinion.” Rex v. Colvin, 26 F. Supp. 3d 1058, 1063 (D. Colo. 2014). “Instead, [RFC] is assessed based on all the relevant medical and other evidence, . . . including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and plaintiff’s own description of his limitations.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (first quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); and then quoting Noble v. Callahan, 978 F. Supp. 980, 987 (D. Kan. 1997)).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using relevant record evidence and the claimant’s ability to meet work requirements; an assessment accounting for obesity is adequate when supported by substantial evidence.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-10(a)

When assessing RFC, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(4). ... The court concludes that plaintiff's assessed RFC was adequately explained and grounded in substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite limitations; an RFC can account for mental restrictions by reflecting consultants’ narrative assessments.

Fernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-11(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 then crafted an RFC that sufficiently accounted for the actual narrative restrictions assigned by both psychological consultants.

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

Cuppek · filed 2025-09-13(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). ... Having reviewed the record, the Court agrees with the Commissioner that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence; the assessment need not precisely match a particular medical opinion.

Gullotti v. Martin J. O Malley · filed 2025-09-15(a)(3)

The ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence, but the RFC determination need not precisely reflect a specific medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R.§ 404.1545(a)(3) (“We will assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”).

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; an assessment allowing light work with additional limits may be upheld when substantial evidence supports it.

Northern v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-16(a)(1)

The ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work, with some additional limitations, is supported by substantial evidence, ... and evidence of daily activities that were at least to some extent inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegations (Tr. 26, 49-50, 294-300).

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

Ouellet v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-09-16(a)(3)

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

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

Ouellet · filed 2025-09-16(a)(3)

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

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations; an ALJ may adequately assess it by considering evidence about all seven relevant physical functions without discussing each one separately.

Livengood v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-09-17(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). ... After laying out all the evidence necessary to consider the seven rele- vant functions, the ALJ then explained the RFC determination. Id. at 713. That is sufficient.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence; the assessment need not precisely match a medical opinion.

Melander v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-17(a)(3)

The ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence, but the RFC determination need not precisely reflect a specific medical opinion.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations and requires the adjudicator to assess it using all relevant evidence.

Adkins · filed 2025-09-17(a)

The RFC determination is the most a claimant can do despite her restrictions or limitations, and is solely an administrative assessment made by the adjudicator based on all the relevant evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545(a) requires a residual functional capacity assessment to consider all relevant evidence of what a claimant can do despite impairments.

Simpson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-18(a)

The RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite the limitations imposed by his 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. ... Again, the Court finds that the ALJ supported his RFC determination with substantial evidence and accurately characterized the medical evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as what a person can still do despite limitations caused by impairments.

McKenney v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-18(a)(1)

RFC 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 RFC assessment to account for limitations supported by the whole record, including medical evidence and the claimant’s statements.

Gallagher v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-18

The ALJ’s RFC assessment must account for all limitations supported by the medical evidence, claimant testimony, and the record as a whole, and must be based on objective findings, relevant medical opinions, and a claimant’s activities of daily living. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945; SSR 96-8p.

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

ROBERTS v. DUDEK · filed 2025-09-29(a)(1)

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

A residual functional capacity assessment must explain the reasoning behind its work-related limitations so that a court can review them.

Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-29

Because the ALJ failed to explain the rationale for the exceptions to the residual functional capacity determination, the lack of logical explanation precludes meaningful review.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) assesses the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; moderate difficulty with one- or two-step instructions does not necessarily rule out an RFC for simple instructions.

Lepe v. OMalley · filed 2025-09-29(a)(1)

Nonetheless, defendant also correctly points out that an RFC determination is designed to reflect an individual’s maximum capabilities, not their minimum capabilities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The ALJ permissibly determined that a limitation to simple instructions balanced plaintiff’s moderate limitations with respect to one- to two-step instructions with his apparent ability to perform at least some detailed and complex tasks.

An RFC must account for supported limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, or the ALJ must explain why they do not affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-30(a)(2)

The VE should have been told about Ms. Sanders’s moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, or the ALJ should have explained why the limitations are inconsequential, so as to be sure that the jobs the VE proposed are ones that Ms. Sanders can actually do.

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

Rodgers v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-30(a)

The Court is also satisfied that the record evidence detailed above constitutes substantial evidence to support the RFC for a range of sedentary work, with the stated restrictions. Residual functional capacity is a measure of what Plaintiff can do despite her credible limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to account for a moderate mental-function limitation in the RFC when it affects work-related functions; medical evidence can support a restriction to simple, routine, unskilled work.

Cochran v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-30(a)

Otherwise, the ALJ must account for the moderate mental-function limitation when formulating the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (“Your residual functional capacity is the most you can still do despite your limitations.”). This can be done by limiting the claimant to simple, routine, unskilled work when there is medical evidence indicating that the claimant can perform such work despite the moderate mental-function limitation.

Mental residual functional capacity must account for limitations identified through the psychiatric review technique, but need not repeat those findings verbatim.

Manriquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-30(c)

The RFC determination must consider the functional limitations identified through the PRT, even if the ALJ is not required to incorporate those limitations verbatim into the RFC. ... The ALJ met their duty to consider the Paragraph B findings in formulating the RFC.

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

Morris v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-10-01(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). ... The ALJ’s less restrictive RFC findings are supported by substantial evidence.

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

HAMMOND v. DUDEK · filed 2025-10-07(a)

“The ALJ must consider all relevant evidence when determining an individual’s residual functional capacity in step four.” Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 41 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2), 404.1545(a), 404.1546; Burnett, 220 F.3d at 121). ... Here, in rejecting the more restrictive portions of Dr. Desir’s opinion, the ALJ complied with these requirements, relying upon: (1) relatively unremarkable mental status examinations contained in the record; and (2) the myriad notes in the record from both medical sources (including Dr. Desir herself) and Plaintiff indicating that she functioned much better when she complied with her medication regimen.

A residual functional capacity assessment may limit a claimant’s activities to the extent supported by the evidence of record.

Moumen v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-10-09(a)

A review of the record, however, reveals that ALJ Burock explicitly addressed the issues Moumen alleges he did not, that the included limitations are supported by substantial evidence, and that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination fully complied with applicable regulations.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite impairments, so a limit to simple instructions and decisions excludes more complex ones without separately listing them.

HENSAL · filed 2025-12-19(a)(1)

This is consistent with the definition of RFC, which provides that the RFC is the most that an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairments. See Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 40; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). Therefore, a statement that Plaintiff is able to understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions and make simple work-related decisions would mean that this is the most Plaintiff could do; it would not be necessary to expressly discuss complex instructions and decisions that would be beyond such an RFC.

An RFC finding can be supported by a claimant’s own testimony even if the ALJ mishandled medical opinions about the claimant’s limitations.

Neal · filed 2026-04-30(a)(1)

Thus, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding even assuming the ALJ misunderstood or mishandled the opinions of Dr. McGuffin and Dr. Keown.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places the burden on the claimant to provide evidence supporting proposed functional limitations in the RFC.

A.M. v. Bisignano · filed 2026-05-26(a)(3)

Where, as here, no medical source has opined that a claimant’s condition would result in work-preclusive absences, the claimant has not met her burden of establishing that such a limitation is warranted. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places the burden on the claimant to establish that an RFC limitation is warranted by the evidence.

Churan · filed 2026-05-29(a)(3)

That evidentiary absence is itself significant; the claimant bears the burden of establishing that RFC limitations are warranted, and the complete absence of supporting medical opinion evidence on this point is relevant to whether that burden has been met.

An RFC assessment must reflect what a claimant can do despite her limitations; an ALJ cannot rely on an independent interpretation of unreviewed MRI results to support light work.

Elkins · filed 2026-04-08(a)(1)

However, the February 2024 MRI is new medical evidence that was not reviewed by the state agency physician or any other physician, and the ALJ is not qualified to interpret the results to suggest that the Plaintiff could perform light work.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite limitations; an ALJ’s assessment must have support in the record.

Roberts · filed 2026-04-20(a)(1)

The RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite his limitations. Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1000–01 (7th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... However, when an ALJ rejects the opinions of record and the rest of the record does not support the RFC, the ALJ leaves an evidentiary deficit.

An ALJ properly formulates residual functional capacity when it is based on the relevant evidence in the record as a whole.

Humphreys · filed 2026-04-24

Here, the ALJ properly formulated Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity based on the relevant evidence in the record as a whole.

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

Fajardo · filed 2026-05-05(a)(1)

RFC is the most a claimant can do, not the least, despite the combined effect of all limitations.

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

Rhodes · filed 2026-05-11(a)(1)

The RFC is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite” her physical or mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Section 404.1545(a) treats residual functional capacity as an administrative assessment, based on all the evidence, of what a claimant can do despite her limitations.

Heard · filed 2026-05-22(a)

RFC is an assessment of the most a claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis despite her limitations. ... It is an administrative assessment, based on all the evidence, of how a claimant’s impairments and related symptoms affect her ability to perform work related activities.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using reliable clinical examinations and diagnostic imaging without a medical professional’s opinion about the claimant’s ability to function.

Bonham v. Bisignano · filed 2026-06-02(a)(3)

Section 404.1545(a)(3) and our earlier cases such as Hensley make clear that the “something” may be based on reliable objective medical data such as clinical examinations and diagnostic imaging and need not include a medical professional’s opinion regarding the claimant’s functionality.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe ones, and relevant medical opinions and symptom testimony.

Pruitt · filed 2026-06-02

The RFC must contemplate all medically determinable impairments, including those which the ALJ found to be non-severe, and evaluate all the relevant testimony, including the opinions of medical providers and the subjective symptom testimony set forth by the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; SSR 96–8p. ... Because the ALJ’s RFC determination was a rational interpretation of the record supported by substantial evidence, this Court concludes that he did not err in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC.

An ALJ may omit a claimed limitation from the RFC when the relevant evidence does not support a specific work-related restriction.

Young · filed 2026-03-30(a)(3)

And Ms. Y. identifies no other medical opinion or evidence supporting a specific limitation relating to head movement. ... The ALJ cited more than a “mere scintilla”75 of evidence; substantial evidence supports the RFC assessment. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in omitting limitations on head movement from the RFC determination.

An RFC assessment need not include an off-task limitation when the evidence does not support one.

Gliwa v. Saul · filed 2022-07-25(a)(1)

No physician of record indicated that Plaintiff would be off-task for any amount of the workday, much less a work-preclusive 15% of each day, and the ALJ did not err in excluding such a limitation from the RFC determination.

An ALJ may determine residual functional capacity from the record evidence even when no medical source gives the same assessment.

Troutman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-26(a)(1)

Rather, the ALJ proffered an adequate explanation for rejecting Dr. Riggs’s opinion and determined Plaintiff’s RFC based on the evidence of record, which included Dr. Riggs’s treatment notes. The Court finds no error.

An ALJ’s RFC findings must have substantial evidence supporting the claimant’s specific functional abilities; an unsupported interpretation of medical evidence does not suffice.

Brydon v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-28(a)(1)

Again, there is no medical opinion in the record regarding plaintiff’s specific functional abilities sufficient to support the ALJ’s RFC findings. Therefore, the ALJ’s RFC was not supported by substantial evidence. On remand, the ALJ shall further develop the record and reformulate the RFC accordingly.

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity without a medical opinion when the record contains sufficient evidence to do so.

Kunze v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-18(a)(3)

First, an ALJ’s RFC determination is not fatally flawed merely because it was formulated absent a medical opinion.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to base an RFC finding or any particular limitation on a medical opinion.

Wampler v. Saul · filed 2019-11-27

In addition, there is no requirement that an ALJ base his RFC finding, or any particular limitation in it, on a medical opinion.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider medical and other evidence; the ALJ must identify evidence supporting the specific limitations assessed.

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

However, the ALJ did not identify any opinion or other evidence that corresponded to the specific limitations in the RFC or otherwise explain why they were warranted by the evidence.

Lifting and carrying limits in a residual functional capacity assessment must be supported by substantial evidence.

Moreland v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-25

The lifting and carrying limitations in the RFC are not supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC describes what a claimant can still do despite impairments, and its functional limits must be connected to the evidence.

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

In light of the ALJ’s rejection of all medical opinions regarding Plaintiff’s physical impairments, the ALJ failed to adequately explain how her discussion of the medical record supported the opined lifting and carrying restrictions in the RFC.

Section 404.1545 allows an RFC finding supported by medical examination evidence and state agency physicians’ opinions despite a treating physician’s contrary opinion.

GIOVENE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-12-04

Given that the ALJ was justified in weighing more heavily the state agency physician’s opinions and the medical evidence of Plaintiff’s physical exams, these facts support the ALJ’s conclusion as to Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an ALJ to determine residual functional capacity without a treating physician’s opinion when the record as a whole substantially supports the determination.

Vandyke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-24(a)(3)

Mathers, however, makes it clear this is a case by case determination—there is no requirement that an ALJ use a treating physician’s opinion when determining an RFC, if his conclusion is substantially supported by the record as a whole.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity may give a medical opinion great weight without adopting every limitation it proposes when the assessment is supported by the evidence.

Bullock v. Saul · filed 2019-09-23(a)(3)

However, the ALJ was not required to adopt Dr. Pyle’s opinion in whole. ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in formulating the RFC, despite his decision not to adopt Dr. Pyle’s opinion in whole.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence; the ALJ need not rely on a medical opinion.

Rodriguez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-27(a)(1)

However, in assessing the RFC, the ALJ is not required to rely on a medical opinion. The RFC is an administrative assessment “based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1) and 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from medical records and other evidence without adopting a particular physician’s opinion.

Elliott v. Saul · filed 2019-09-03(a)

Rather, the ALJ was permitted to develop the RFC based upon the medical records and factual evidence in this case.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions from treating, examining, and non-examining sources.

Valentine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-04(a)(3)

In doing so, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, the medical opinions of treating, examining, and non-examining medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

In assessing residual functional capacity, the ALJ evaluates how medically determinable symptoms limit a claimant’s ability to perform work activities.

Bruno, IV v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-05(e)

Next, the ALJ evaluates the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of those medically determinable symptoms on the plaintiff’s ability to perform work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e).

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

Claymon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-06(a)

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

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

Threet v. Saul · filed 2019-09-06(a)(1)

An RFC is the most a claimant can do despite the combined effect of all credible limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The ALJ, however, did not rely solely on Dr. Scher’s opinion in forming the RFC but rather relied on all the relevant evidence of record, including Dr. Thomas’ opinion and Plaintiff’s daily activities, work history, medical records, and frequency and duration of treatment. Thus, the RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence about residual functional capacity and requires the Commissioner to develop the claimant’s complete medical history.

Turner v. Saul · filed 2019-09-09(a)(3)

Ultimately, the claimant is responsible for providing evidence relating to her RFC and the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3) (emphasis in original).

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

McDowell v. Saul · filed 2019-09-09

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

An ALJ must explain how the evidence supports the residual functional capacity assigned for a claimant’s impairments.

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

What is missing is the link between the information presented and the ALJ’s RFC’s determination regarding Plaintiff’s spine disorders. Such a link is not self-explanatory to the court.

Residual functional capacity is assessed from the record as a whole and need not match any particular doctor’s opinion.

Swafford v. Saul · filed 2019-09-10(a)

Therefore, the ALJ’s RFC is not required to match any particular doctor’s RFC or opinion.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) permits an ALJ to omit manipulative limitations from a residual functional capacity assessment when the evidence does not support them.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-10(a)(1)

Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the ALJ to exclude manipulative limitations when rendering Plaintiff’s RFC.

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

Blythe v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-10(a)(3)

In formulating an RFC finding, “the ALJ evaluates all relevant medical and other evidence and considers what weight to assign to treating, consultative, and examining physicians’ opinions.” Eslinger v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 476 F. App’x 618, 621 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3)); see also Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2010).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all the evidence in the record.

(SS) Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-11(a)(1)

The RFC assessment is based on all the evidence in the record, and it is the ALJ's duty to consider and weigh that evidence. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1545(a)(1); SSR 96-8p.

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

Broadbent v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-11(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). The ALJ determines the RFC based on all of the relevant evidence in the record, including medical evidence, opinion evidence, and a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain. Id. ... In sum, the Court finds the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC finding is not supported by substantial evidence when the ALJ mischaracterizes significant evidence bearing on the claimant’s functional limitations and the error may affect the outcome.

LaJeuness v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-11

Because the ALJ mischaracterized and failed to discuss significant evidence in the record that tends to support Plaintiff’s allegations, and because that mischaracterization may have affected the outcome of the case, the Court cannot say that the ALJ’s findings with regard to Plaintiff's RFC are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) directs an administrative law judge to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence.

CORTESE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-11(a)(3)

The regulations provide an administrative law judge will “assess [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”

Section 404.1545(a)(3) calls for an RFC based on the relevant evidence; a reaching limitation need not be included when the record does not support it.

Collins Sr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-23(a)(3)

He also considered relevant medical evidence, opinion evidence, and testimony to formulate the RFC. Notably, William C. has not demonstrated that the evidence in the record supported a limitation that would preclude or significantly limit his ability to reach in any direction.

An RFC assessment must connect its limitations to record evidence so a court can review whether substantial evidence supports it.

Starr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-23

And without any analysis connecting the record evidence to the RFC, this Court cannot determine whether the RFC was based on substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment lacks substantial evidence when the ALJ derives work limitations from raw medical evidence without an adequate basis for doing so.

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

In this setting, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s RFC is not supported by substantial evidence in that there is an insufficient basis to conclude that the RFC’s limitations accurately reflect the work limitations associated with the physical and mental impairments found by the ALJ. Even if well-intentioned, the ALJ erred by failing to fully develop the record by obtaining an appropriate medical opinion regarding what work-related limitations arise from Petitioner’s physical and mental impairments.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence and include supported limitations, including limits on pace and persistence.

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

An ALJ must evaluate all relevant evidence when determining an applicant's RFC, including evidence of impairments that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... As the ALJ did not include the limitation that Plaintiff only work with “reasonable” pace and persistence, the RFC is erroneous and requires a remand.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must address favorable evidence of limitations and cannot rely on a medical opinion made stale by later deterioration.

Vazquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-16

In formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must “confront the evidence in [the plaintiff’s] favor and explain why it was rejected.” ... But Dr. Miller provided that opinion well before Vazquez was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, and a stale medical opinion such as this one does not support an ALJ’s finding.

An RFC finding that a claimant can perform medium work requires medical evidence supporting the claimant’s ability to stand, walk, lift, and carry at that level.

Rivera v. Saul · filed 2019-08-15(a)(1)

To find plaintiff capable of medium work, therefore, the ALJ was required to make findings supported by medical evidence regarding plaintiff’s ability to stand, walk, lift, and carry in accordance with the requirements for medium work.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence and to explain the evidentiary basis for the claimant’s functional limitations.

Campbell v. Saul · filed 2019-08-22(a)

The ALJ’s decisions at steps four and five are based on a claimant’s RFC—the most a claimant can do despite her physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). An ALJ determines a claimant’s RFC based on all relevant evidence, id., including medical records, physicians’ opinions, and the claimant’s description of her limitations. ... In light of this deficiency, the Court will remand the proceeding for a proper explanation of the evidentiary basis for Plaintiff’s functional limitations.

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

Hynes v. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-22(a)

In making an RFC determination on behalf of the Commissioner, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including the opinions and statements by all medical sources.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider all record evidence, including medical records and the claimant’s statements about abilities and limitations, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Lawrence v. SSA · filed 2000-06-14(a)

In making a disability determination, the ALJ is reguired to consider all of the record evidence, including the medical records and the claimant's own statements concerning his abilities and limitations.

Residual functional capacity is based on all record evidence, but some medical evidence must support the finding.

Dykes v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2000-08-21

The current regulations make clear that residual functional capacity is a determination based upon all the record evidence. ... We agree with Dykes to this extent — the record must include some medical evidence that supports the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding.

A residual functional capacity finding must have some supporting medical evidence in the record.

McPherson v. Apfel · filed 2000-08-31

Thus, Nevland, Weiler, Anderson and Dykes all stand for the same proposition: The Commissioner must prove that the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform “other jobs” and the Commissioner cannot meet that burden unless his determination that the claimant retains sufficient residual functional capacity to perform “other jobs” is supported by medical evidence.

An RFC assessment considers all relevant evidence, including the claimant’s reported limitations and observations by physicians and other witnesses.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2001-01-12(a)

It is an assessment “based upon all of the relevant evidence” including the claimant’s own descriptions of limitations that go beyond the symptoms of the impairment, such as pain; observations by the claimant’s treating or examining physicians, including medical records; and observations by other relevant witnesses. ... Our review of the record, including Brown’s testimony, the VE’s testimony, and the medical records, also leads to our conclusion conclude that the ALJ has provided reliable evidence, in the form of the VE’s testimony, that supports the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using medical information and other record evidence, including the claimant’s account of work he can perform; a doctor need not make the assessment.

Robinson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2001-03-19(a)

The residual functional capacity determination is not a medical determination that must be performed by a doctor as Robinson asserts. The determination must be made by the ALJ based upon medical information in the record plus all other record evidence, including the claimant’s assessment of what type of work he can perform.

A residual functional capacity assessment considers all available evidence, including statements from medical sources about what the claimant can still do.

Cauthen v. Apfel · filed 2001-03-26

The residual functional capacity assessment is based on all of the evidence the ALJ has, including any statements regarding what the claimant can still do that have been provided by treating or examining physicians, consultative physicians, or any other medical or psychological consultant designated by the Commissioner.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to base a claimant’s residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence, including medical opinions about work limitations.

Canfield v. SSA · filed 2001-04-19(a)

When making his RFC determination, an ALJ must “consider objective medical facts, diagnoses and medical opinions based on such facts, and subjective evidence of pain or disability testified to by the claimant or others.” Ferraris, 728 F.2d at 585; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (stating that the RFC must be based on all relevant evidence).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an assessment of residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including the claimant’s described limitations, treating physicians’ observations, and medical records.

Hlebechuk v. Apfel · filed 2001-09-07(a)

In sum, our review of the record as a whole, see Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review), shows that the ALJ properly considered Mr. Hlebechuk’s testimony as to his alleged work-related restrictions (to the extent it was not discredited), the observations of his treating physician, and the medical records, as required. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 404.1546 (responsibility for determining residual functional capacity rests with ALJ; determination should be based on all relevant evidence, including claimant’s own description of limitations, observations of treating physicians and others, and medical records).

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider both medical and nonmedical evidence in the record.

Dixon v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2001-11-08

In assessing the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider both the medical and nonmedical evidence in the record.

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

Correll v. SSA · filed 2002-03-25(a)

The ALJ must "consider objective medical facts, diagnoses and medical opinions based on such facts, and subjective evidence of pain or disability testified to by the claimant or others." Ferraris, 728 F.2d at 585; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (stating that the RFC must be based on all relevant evidence).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC determination to consider all relevant evidence, including the claimant’s description of limitations, medical records, and observations by physicians and others.

Pearsall v. Larry Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2001-12-20(a)

The record as a whole shows that the ALJ properly considered Pearsall’s testimony as to his alleged work-related restrictions (to the extent it was not discredited), Pearsall’s medical records, and the observations of Pearsall’s treating physician, a consultative physician and several psychologists. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 404.1546 (2001) (responsibility for determining RFC rests with ALJ; determination should be based on all relevant evidence, including claimant’s own description of limitations, observations of treating physicians and others, and medical records). After examining the record, we conclude that the ALJ’s functional capacity determination was supported by substantial record evidence.

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

Cuthbertson v. SSA · filed 2003-06-20(a)

In making an RFC determination on behalf of the Commissioner, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including the opinions and statements by all medical sources.

An ALJ must base a residual functional capacity determination on medical evidence in the record.

Mays v. Comm Social Security · filed 2003-10-27(a)(3)

The ALJ’s determination as to a claimant’s residual functional capacity must be based on medical evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 allows an ALJ to consider nonmedical evidence when assessing residual functional capacity but requires some supporting evidence from a professional.

Marvin Baldwin, Sr. v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2003-11-13(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ is not limited to considering medical evidence, but is required to consider at least some supporting evidence from a professional.

Section 404.1545 treats residual functional capacity as the ability to work despite impairments, assessed using medical evidence and descriptions of work limitations.

Bagwell v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-08

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

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider evidence beyond medical records and have at least some supporting evidence from a professional.

Masterson v. Barnhart · filed 2004-04-09(c)

In evaluating a claimant's RFC, the ALJ is not limited to considering medical evidence, but is required to consider at least some supporting evidence from a professional.

An ALJ must assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence, with some medical evidence supporting the finding.

Guilliams v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-04

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must evaluate his or her credibility and take into account all relevant evidence. ... RFC is a medical question, and an ALJ’s finding must be supported by some medical evidence.

Residual functional capacity combines a medical assessment with descriptions of the claimant’s work limitations from physicians, the claimant, or others.

Brown v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-23

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

Section 404.1545 treats residual functional capacity as a combination of medical assessment and descriptions of work limitations by physicians, the claimant, or others.

Maharajh v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-05

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

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence, including treating physicians’ observations and the claimant’s descriptions of limitations.

Rush v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-02

If the ALJ reaches the fourth step, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is what the claimant can do despite his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. The ALJ is required to make the RFC determination based on all relevant evidence, including, particularly, any observations of treating physicians and the claimant’s own subjective complaints and descriptions of his or her limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires consideration of all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Wisniewski v. Comm Social Security · filed 2006-03-24(a)(3)

Under federal regulations, the responsibility for assessing whether a claimant’s residual functional capacity allows him to pursue other work lies with the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c), who is required to consider “all of the relevant medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires consideration of all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-24(a)(3)

Under federal regulations, the responsibility for assessing whether a claimant’s residual functional capacity allows him to pursue other work lies with the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c), who is required to consider “all of the relevant medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Therefore, the ALJ’s finding that the Commissioner had fulfilled its burden was not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity by weighing medical opinions, signs, symptoms, laboratory findings, and reported pain and limitations.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-04-03

The ALJ carefully weighed all of these and other medical opinions regarding plaintiffs impairments and limitations, as well as the signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings, including plaintiffs allegations of pain, and he made a determination regarding plaintiffs residual functional capacity (“RFC”), in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945. ... The ALJ’s RFC assessment, therefore, is based on a proper application of the Commissioner’s regulations and is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 assesses residual functional capacity using medical evidence and descriptions of limitations on a claimant’s ability to work.

MULET-RIVERA v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-22

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

Section 404.1545 assesses residual functional capacity using medical evidence and descriptions of the claimant’s work limitations from physicians, the claimant, or others.

Woods v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-05

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

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations; the finding must consider all relevant evidence and have medical support.

White v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-22(a)

The RFC is "the most [a claimant] can still do despite" his or her physical or mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). When determining plaintiffs RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, but ultimately, the determination of the plaintiffs RFC is a medical question. ... Therefore, the RFC attributed to plaintiff is not supported by substantial medical evidence on the record.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations and requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing it.

Gramlisch v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-22(a)

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

Residual functional capacity combines a medical assessment with descriptions of the claimant’s work limitations from physicians, the claimant, or others.

Lewis v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-26

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

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

Holiday v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-29

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

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

Pettus v. Astrue · filed 2007-04-05(a)(3)

Residual functioning capacity determinations are made “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... The ALJ carefully reviewed and evaluated all of the medical evidence explaining why more weight was being accorded to some. These explanations are supported by the record.

Residual functional capacity combines a medical assessment with descriptions of the claimant’s work limitations from physicians, the claimant, or others.

Collins v. Astrue · filed 2007-04-16

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

An ALJ must base an RFC finding on relevant medical and other evidence and cannot treat an assessment by a single decision maker with no apparent medical credentials as a medical opinion supporting that finding.

Siverio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-02-23(a)(3)

The ALJ makes an RFC finding based on all the “relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... It is undisputed that the ALJ erroneously relied on the RFC assessment of Zuleika Martin as a medical opinion, even though Martin was a “single decision maker” with no apparent medical credential. ... Because substantial evidence does not support this finding, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of Siverio’s RFC.

An RFC finding that a claimant can work full-time must be supported by evidence; an ability to work part-time does not establish full-time capacity.

Allen v. Astrue · filed 2012-06-22(a)(3)

While substantial evidence may support a finding that Claimant is capable of part-time work, an ability to work part-time is not the same as full-time. ... The ALJ did not build a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion that Claimant can work full-time and is therefore capable of performing the jobs identified by the VE at the hearing.

When assessing residual functional capacity, the ALJ may consider evidence beyond medical evidence but needs some supporting evidence from a professional.

Vang v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-20(c)

However, the ALJ is not limited solely to consideration of medical evidence, “but is required to consider at least some supporting evidence from a professional.”

Residual functional capacity may be assessed without a medical source opinion when the record contains enough evidence for an informed finding.

Tankisi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-04-02(a)(1)

Although the RFC is assessed using “all the relevant evidence in [the] case record,” id., the medical opinion of a treating physician is given “controlling weight” as long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... Given the specific facts of this case, including a voluminous medical record assembled by the claimant’s counsel that was adequate to permit an informed finding by the ALJ, we hold that it would be inappropriate to remand solely on the ground that the ALJ failed to request medical opinions in assessing residual functional capacity.

An RFC assessment may omit a medical consultant’s proposed limitations when the treatment record does not support them.

Luterman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-05-02(a)(1)

However, the ALJ explained that these additional limitations were not supported by Luterman’s treatment record. The ALJ’s reason for excluding Dr. Coleman’s additional limitations is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC determination to be supported by substantial evidence; a non-examining consultant’s opinion alone is insufficient when a treating physician contradicts it.

Shew v. Colvin · filed 2013-07-01(a)(1)

The Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence. A non-examining consultant’s opinion alone is insufficient to support an ALJ’s RFC determination and certainly falls short when contradicted by the opinion of a treating physician.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an ALJ to evaluate medical evidence when determining residual functional capacity without obtaining a medical expert to interpret it.

Rudd v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-09-05(a)(3)

In fact, the regulations require the ALJ to evaluate the medical evidence to determine whether a claimant is disabled. ... In other words, the ALJ was not required to obtain a medical expert to interpret the medical evidence related to Rudd’s impairments.

An RFC assessment need not include limitations the ALJ reasonably finds unsupported by medical and other evidence.

Stone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-11-14(a)

The RFC is an assessment of a claimant’s ability to do work despite his impairment. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). ... Because the ALJ correctly determined that this opinion was to be accorded less weight and was not supported by the medical evidence and Stone’s testimony regarding her daily activities, the ALJ was not required to include these limitations in the RFC and hypothetical.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) measures residual functional capacity by what a claimant can still do in a work setting despite limitations; testimony that does not address that ability is not an RFC opinion.

Marintez v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-10(a)(1)

Dr. Kapacoff's testimony is not an opinion about Martinez's RFC, because she said virtually nothing about "what [Martinez could] do in a work setting," 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1) & 416.945(a)(1), or "the most [he could] still do despite [his] limitations," i d .

Section 404.1545(a)(1) does not require an explicit finding that an older expert report is consistent with later evidence before the hearing officer relies on it to determine residual functional capacity.

Blackette v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-25(a)(1)

Accordingly, this Court determines that the hearing officer need not make an explicit consistency determination, though, of course, the agency would be advised to do so.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC finding to have expert support when assessing functional limits from medical findings exceeds an ALJ’s lay competence.

McLaughlin v. SSA · filed 2015-06-08

Because the ALJ in this case was not qualified to make an RFC finding without the benefit of evidence from an expert, and because there is no evidence from an expert that supports the ALJ’s finding that McLaughlin was capable of light work, that finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

When the evidence does not adequately show how an impairment affects a claimant’s ability to function at work, the ALJ must develop the record further to assess residual functional capacity.

Mann v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-23(a)(3)

While there is ample evidence that Mann suffers from recurring, serious migraine headaches, neither the consultative opinions nor the underlying medical records adequately address the impact those headaches have on Mann’s ability to function in a work environment. The ALJ should have developed the record further by obtaining an opinion on this issue from a treating or examining source.

A residual functional capacity assessment must include a limitation on which a credited medical opinion conditions the claimant’s ability to work.

MacKenzie v. SSA · filed 2016-02-23(a)(1)

Without that limitation, Dr. Landerman’s opinion does not support the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider medical evidence that contradicts a finding that the claimant can perform light work.

Stage v. Colvin · filed 2016-02-09

Here, the ALJ’s analysis of Stage’s medical evidence does not logically support his finding that she could perform light work. He did not engage sufficiently with the evidence showing she could not do so.

Residual functional capacity may be assessed using medical evidence, activities, response to treatment, testimony, and a physician’s assessment.

Louis Sedillo, Jr. v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-23(a)(3)

The ALJ’s determination of Sedillo’s residual functional capacity was also supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ found Sedillo could perform light, unskilled work with some restrictions based on the objective medical evidence, Sedillo’s regular exercise, Sedillo’s improvement in functioning and decreased pain complaints as the result of treatment, his own less than credible testimony, and Dr. Khan’s 2011 assessment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3); SSR 96- 8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 (July 2, 1996).

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

Eaton v. Colvin · filed 2016-04-04

A plaintiffs RFC—which “includes physical abilities, such as sitting, standing or walking, and mental abilities, such as the ability to understand, remember and carry out instructions or to respond appropriately to supervision, co-workers and work pressure[ ]”—“is a[n] [ ] assessment of what the claimant can do in a work setting despite any mental, physical or environmental limitations caused by the claimant’s impairments and related symptoms.”

An ALJ assesses residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; a finding that a claimant can perform light work must have evidentiary support.

Martz v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2016-05-19(a)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s functional capacity, the ALJ considers “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Nothing in the testimony of Martz’s treating physicians or even in the statement of the Commissioner’s expert suggests that Martz could perform work at this level. Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s decision that Martz could perform light work.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations, and the ALJ’s determination must be supported by substantial evidence.

Buford v. Colvin · filed 2016-06-02(a)(1)

Buford’s RFC “is the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... We conclude that the ALJ’s determination of Buford’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ sufficiently developed the record.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite her limitations, based on all relevant evidence in the record.

Gobis v. SSA · filed 2016-06-07(a)(1)

In assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ determines “the most [the claimant] can do despite [her] limitations . . . based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).