20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

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

Olek v. Saul · filed 2021-12-13(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the maximum work that she can perform despite any limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2.

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

MOORE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2021-12-13(a)(1)

It is true that the RFC determination must describe the most a claimant can do, not the least he can do. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) ("Your residual functional capacity is the most you can still do despite your limitations."). But in the absence of any statement to that effect, it is entirely unclear why the ALJ concluded that Dr. McClellan was opining about the least Matthew M. could do, versus the most he could do.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider all medical and nonmedical evidence, including the claimant’s symptoms, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-14(a)(3), (e)

To determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider all medical and nonmedical evidence, including the claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1545 assesses residual functional capacity by considering all relevant evidence of what a claimant can do despite impairments.

Bennett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-15

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.

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

Ryan v. Saul · filed 2021-12-16(a)(1)

Residual functional capacity, or RFC, is the most an individual can still do despite his or her limitations.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence; a physician’s assessment is not required.

STROUP v. SAUL · filed 2021-12-17(a)

Further, I acknowledge that “[r]arely can a decision be made regarding a claimant’s [RFC] without an assessment from a physician regarding the functional abilities of the claimant.” ... However, it is not a requirement. ... Rather, an ALJ is charged with formulating the RFC based on all of the relevant evidence.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite medically determinable impairments and requires assessment based on all relevant record evidence.

Cervantes v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-21(a)

The RFC reflects “the most [a person] can still do despite [the] limitations” caused by medically determinable impairments and is assessed “based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945(a). ... The ALJ canvassed the medical evidence and fully accounted for Cervantes’s physical and mental impairments.

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

STITT v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-12-21(a)

RFC refers to the most a claimant can still do despite his/her limitations.

An RFC limitation can be supported by substantial evidence even when no medical source specifically opines on that limitation.

Bald v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-02(a)(1)

Where the record contains sufficient evidence from which an ALJ can assess a plaintiff’s RFC, a medical source statement or formal medical opinion is not necessarily required. ... Here, although no medical source specifically opined Plaintiff could frequently handle and finger objects, the ALJ’s RFC limitation was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

An RFC need not include an off-task limitation when the claimant offers no supporting evidence beyond her testimony and conclusory assertions.

Kushlan v. Saul · filed 2021-12-27

But more to the point, other than her own testimony and conclusory legal assertions, Petitioner points to no evidence establishing that she would be so off-tasked. So, it was reasonable for the ALJ not to include such a limitation in her RFC, even though he did propose off-task-related hypothetical questions to the vocational expert.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to turn a moderate paragraph B finding into a specific RFC limitation.

Adams v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-03

Thus, here the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff is moderately limited in concentration, persistence, and pace with respect to Plaintiff’s Paragraph B criteria did not require the ALJ to assess a specific degree of functional limitation in the RFC.

An RFC allowing a full workweek without a concentration, persistence, or pace limitation is internally inconsistent with a finding of moderate limitations in that area.

Gilbertson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-12

Nevertheless, Plaintiff is correct that despite the assessment of moderate limitations for “concentration, persistence, and pace,” see AR 25, the RFC proposes a full workweek with no limitation, see AR 26. Because that conclusion is internally inconsistent, it is error and must be revisited on remand.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places on the claimant the burden of providing evidence of how impairments limit residual functional capacity; an ALJ may omit a claimed limitation that the evidence does not support.

Pullium v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-07(a)(3)

Plaintiff bears the burden of providing evidence establishing the degree to which her impairments limit her residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... For these reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ properly supported the residual functional capacity finding as written, without the additional claimed limitation relating to leg elevation for 80 to 85% of the workday.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence but does not require a medical opinion addressing each specific functional limitation.

Dillon v. Saul · filed 2022-01-25(a)

RFC is defined as “what [the claimant] can still do” despite her “physical or mental limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). The ALJ 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 his limitations. McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Anderson v. Shalala, 51 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir. 1995)). ... Thus, the ALJ was not obligated to seek the specific opinion of a medical source as to plaintiff’s functional limitations before fashioning her RFC, nor did he substantially err by considering Dr. Simowitz’s opinion in his determination merely because it did not address all the medical evidence of record.

An RFC limitation specifying the required height of leg elevation must be supported by evidence.

Starr v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-26(a)(1)

But the ALJ never explained the basis for finding that Starr’s foot should be raised only to the level of a footstool. And the basis for fixing the required elevation height at the footstool level is not otherwise obvious from the record. We thus cannot find that the RFC — which contains the specific limitation that Starr’s foot be raised only to the level of a “footstool” — is supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment can be supported by substantial evidence without a consultative examination when the agency made every reasonable effort to obtain sufficient evidence.

Terrebonne v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-17

The record shows that the Commissioner took every reasonable effort to ensure that the file contain sufficient evidence to assess residual functional capacity, such that the absence of a consultative exam does not render the ALJ’s opinion lacking in substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the record as a whole when no medical opinion supports a finding of disability.

McNeill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-28(a)(1)

In contrast, when no medical opinion supports a disability finding or when an ALJ is relying upon other evidence, such as contrasting clinical or opinion evidence or testimony regarding the claimant’s activities of daily living, to fashion an RFC courts have adopted a more pragmatic view and have sustained the ALJ’s exercise of independent judgment based upon all of the facts and evidence. ... Therefore, it cannot be said that McNeill was prejudiced by the fashioning of this RFC since there is no significant evidence in the record suggesting that the plaintiff suffered from a materially greater degree of impairment.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations, and a finding that the claimant can perform light work must have substantial medical support.

Waggoner v. Saul · filed 2022-03-04(a)(1)

“A claimant’s RFC is ‘the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.’” Swink, 931 F.3d at 769 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). ... Here, the ALJ found that Mr. Waggoner could perform a range of light work but failed to point to substantial medical evidence supporting this conclusion.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require consideration of a condition found not medically determinable.

McConnell v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-07(a)(2)

But because the ALJ properly found that McConnell’s fibromyalgia was not a MDI, the ALJ was not required to determine its severity, nor was she required to consider it when assessing McConnell’s RFC.

An ALJ must use all relevant record evidence to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to sustain physical and mental work activities despite impairments.

Rogers v. SSA · filed 2022-03-08

Before moving on to the fourth step, the ALJ must use all of the relevant evidence in the record to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC), which assesses an individual’s ability to perform certain physical and ... mental work activities on a sustained basis despite any impairment experienced by the individual. ... A review of the record demonstrates that the ALJ thoroughly reviewed the record and appropriately attributed greater or lesser weight to the testimony and opinions of Ms. Rogers and the experts based on the record as a whole.

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

Rees v. Saul · filed 2022-03-08(a)

In making the RFC assessment, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence of the claimant’s impairments and any related symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... Since the ALJ connected her step 3 findings to the RFC assessment, and provided sufficient explanation regarding Plaintiff’s limitations throughout the RFC narrative, the Court finds there is no reversible error.

Section 404.1545 measures residual functional capacity by what a claimant can do in a work setting despite limitations from medically determinable impairments.

Folk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-08

RFC is a medical assessment of what an individual can do in a work setting in spite of functional limitations and environmental restrictions imposed by all of his medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945. ... Based on this record, the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for functional limitations and environmental restrictions imposed by all medically determinable impairments.

Haight v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-08

RFC is a medical assessment of what an individual can do in a work setting in spite of functional limitations and environmental restrictions imposed by all of his medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... This is precisely what the ALJ did in evaluating the medical record in this case. Based on this record, the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(e) requires an ALJ to consider relevant treating-source evidence when assessing mental residual functional capacity.

Frazer v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-08(e)

It follows, then, that the ALJ should have considered Dr. Papafrangos’s treating source opinion when determining Plaintiff’s mental RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e).

Residual functional capacity reflects the work a claimant can still do despite limitations supported by the relevant evidence.

Netherton v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-08(a)(1)

His conclusion that Plaintiff is capable of light work with occasional stooping was therefore based on all the relevant medical evidence, which does not support further limitations.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ considers a claimant’s subjective complaints as one of many factors.

Mirhabibi v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-03-09(a)(3)

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

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

Lundell v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-10(a)(3)

The ALJ must assesses residual functional capacity based on all relevant record evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). The court finds the ALJ met that requirement here, and his residual functional capacity finding is substantially supported by that evidence.

When an ALJ gives a medical opinion great weight, the RFC must include its work restrictions or explain why they were excluded.

Gant v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-10(a)

“The ALJ assesses a claimant’s RFC based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record,” to determine the claimant’s capacity for work. Laborin v. Berryhill, 867 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... It is clear error for the ALJ to afford Dr. Down’s opinion great weight, to not include those restrictions in the RFC, and to not explain why those restrictions were excluded.

Residual functional capacity may account for mental limitations through restrictions on tasks and public interaction when those restrictions are supported by the medical evidence.

TAX v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-10(a)(1)

Overall, then, I find that the non-exertional limitations of the RFC were consistent with the objective medical evidence in the record and thus were supported by substantial evidence.

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

King v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-10(a)(1)

It is the most an individual can do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Here, the ALJ thoroughly reviewed the medical records, medical opinions, and non-medical evidence and concluded Ms. King could perform medium exertion work. That conclusion is well-supported by substantial evidence, including normal physical and neurological examination findings.

Section 404.1545 requires the Commissioner to assess residual functional capacity—the most a claimant can do despite limitations—before Step Four.

Mikus v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-11(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; the Commissioner assesses it before Step Four.

Halley v. Kiljakazi · filed 2022-03-11(a)(1)

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

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

Robinson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-11(a)(1)

Prior to Step Four, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” (RFC), which is “the most a claimant can do despite [his or her] limitations.” ... Having reviewed the entire record, the Court finds that the ALJ made a proper RFC determination based on a fully and fairly developed record.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do despite limitations; the assessment must rest on a fully and fairly developed record.

Steele v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-11(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; an opinion predating the alleged onset date and conflicting with later work may be of questionable relevance.

Allen v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-11(a)(1)

The regulations require the ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1)–(3), 416.945(a)(1)–(3) (emphasis added). ... Given that Hanson’s opinion significantly predated Plaintiff’s alleged onset date and appears inconsistent with the work he was able to perform after she identified his supposedly disabling conditions, it is of questionable relevance.

Section 404.1545 assigns the ALJ responsibility for determining residual functional capacity from the evidence as a whole without requiring a medical opinion.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-08(a)(1), (a)(3)

Thus, the ALJ was not required to obtain a medical opinion before formulating Plaintiff’s RFC.

An RFC determination may be supported by substantial evidence when the ALJ considers medical findings and opinions concerning migraine headaches.

Garcia v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-16(a)(1)

For the reasons stated by the ALJ in her written decision and after a review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination relating to Plaintiff’s migraine headaches is supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC finding that a claimant can sit long enough for sedentary work must have substantial evidence supporting any limitation that allows her to change positions while seated.

Melchionna v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2022-03-17(a)

Thus, the evidence cited for the disability determination does not constitute the substantial evidence necessary to support the ALJ’s determination that Melchionna could perform sedentary work with the limitation of needing to “change positions while continuing to sit and work for 10 minutes every hour[.]” (A.R. at 1379.)

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC assessment supported by clinical findings, treatment response, reported activities, and consideration of the claimant’s subjective complaints.

Wydrzynski v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-17(a)(3)

Notwithstanding the factors and evidence discussed above, including relatively unremarkable clinical findings, inconsistent statements about fatigue, reported activities, and improvement with treatment, the ALJ still crafted a highly restrictive RFC finding for the period under consideration, limiting plaintiff to less than the full range of sedentary exertional level work. [Tr. 192.] This clearly shows that the ALJ considered and incorporated plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

An RFC finding that a claimant can sit for approximately six hours a day requires adequate support when the medical opinion describes a moderate sitting limitation.

Mason v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-18(a)(1)

Given these findings, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that it was improper for the ALJ to conclude that Dr. Kaci’s opinion supported an RFC determination that Plaintiff could sit for approximately six hours per day.

An RFC need not include an attendance limitation for migraines when the record contains no evidence that they would cause missed work.

Rowden v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-20(a)(1)

Rowden does not cite to any evidence in the record suggesting that her migraines would cause her to miss time at work. ... In all, there are no evidence-based restrictions that the ALJ could include in a revised RFC finding on remand to accommodate Rowden’s migraines.

An RFC assessment must account for limitations caused by a claimant’s migraine symptoms.

(SS) Richardson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-05(a)

Because the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s migraines were non-severe and discounted her subjective complaints about them, the RFC does not properly reflect the limitations concerning Plaintiff’s migraine symptoms, such as Plaintiff’s testimony that weekly migraines could cause her to be bed bound for hours or more than a day.

An ALJ must base a claimant’s residual functional capacity on all relevant record evidence, including evidence supporting specific functional limits.

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

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It must be crafted by an ALJ based on all relevant evidence in the record. Id. ... For those reasons, the record lacks substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC assessment.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity may rely on MRI findings interpreted by a medical provider without obtaining a new medical expert opinion.

Erlich Lower v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-09(a)(3)

Thus, her challenge amounts to an endorsement of a per se rule, which is not warranted. See Rudd, supra. The Court finds that Lower has not shown that the ALJ erred when she relied upon MRI findings that were interpreted by a medical provider.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an RFC assessment to draw on relevant record evidence, including reviewing physicians’ assessments and the claimant’s account of her abilities.

GIACOBBE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-13(a)(3)

The RFC assessment is based on all the relevant evidence in the record, id., and descriptions and observations of the claimant’s limitations from her impairments provided by the claimant and other persons, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... Contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, the Court finds substantial evidence exists in the record to support the ALJ’s determination of her RFC. The Disability Determination Services (“DDS”) reviewing physicians presented a detailed residual functional capacity analysis consistent with the ALJ’s findings, and Plaintiff testified as to her capacity as well.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) assesses a claimant’s ability to work despite impairments; a rest-break limit need not be included in the RFC without evidence that the breaks prevent the assessed frequency of work.

Ontko v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-13(a)(1)

Ontko has a point that his need for breaks may undermine the ALJ’s finding, as they may result in him being unable to meet that one-third to two-thirds benchmark. However, he has provided no evidence that cumulatively such a limitation should have been included in the RFC.

An ALJ who rejects medical opinions must ground the residual functional capacity determination in other relevant medical and nonmedical evidence, rather than the ALJ’s lay opinion.

Pearson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-30(a)(3)

Having found the medical opinions in the record largely unpersuasive, the ALJ was required to ground her RFC determination in some other evidence. See Schmidt, 496 F.3d at 845; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (an ALJ must consider all of the relevant medical and nonmedical evidence and support a claimant’s RFC using substantial evidence, not the ALJ’s lay opinion).

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity from the entire record and objective medical evidence without incorporating an outside treating physician’s opinion.

RIVERA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-30

Similarly, here, ALJ Tirrell made his RFC determination by considering the entire record, and it is of no moment that he did not incorporate the medical opinion of an outside treating physician. His assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC was based on the objective medical evidence and it was therefore entirely appropriate.

An ALJ need not account for an impairment or medication side effects in the RFC when the record contains no evidence that they caused limitations during the relevant period.

McGuirk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-05(a)(3)

The ALJ is not required to consider an impairment or any limitations resulting from medication if there is no evidence in the medical record indicating that either the impairment or the medication were causing any limitations during the relevant time period.

An RFC need not include a limitation posed in a hypothetical question when the record does not support that limitation.

Burg v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-06(a)(1)

Where the record does not support that particular limitations are present, hypothetical questions about those limitations asked during a hearing need not bear on an RFC’s outcome.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using medical opinions and other record evidence; a specific sitting, standing, or walking limit need not be included when the evidence does not support it.

Hearld v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-05(a)(3)

An administrative law judge makes this finding based on a consideration of medical opinions and all other evidence in the case record. ... Looking to the above analysis, the ALJ’s determination to not include the 30-minute cap for each instance of sitting, standing, or walking is supported by substantial evidence and comports with applicable law.

An RFC assessment must have medical support; an ALJ may not substitute a lay interpretation of medical findings for that support.

French v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-15(a)(1)

While Defendant is correct that the RFC is an administrative finding and not a medical finding, an ALJ still needs medical support for his RFC finding.

An ALJ may exclude a claimed leg-elevation limitation from residual functional capacity when the record lacks objective evidence that the limitation is necessary.

CANDUSSO v. SAUL · filed 2022-08-17(a)(3)

ALJs must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” toward a claimant’s RFC. Id. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s assessment of the alleged leg-elevation limitation and his exclusion of that limitation from the RFC based on the lack of objective evidence demonstrating its necessity in the record.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity without basing the assessment on any particular medical opinion.

Holley v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-07

Because the RFC is an administrative assessment made by an ALJ, not a medical assessment made by a doctor, see Young v. Barnhart, 146 F. App’x 952, 955 (10th Cir. 2005), the ALJ was not required to premise his RFC assessment on any medical opinion.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to include functional limitations supported by the medical record.

BROOKS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-09-08(a)

The Regulations and Seventh Circuit caselaw make clear that an ALJ's RFC assessment must incorporate all of a claimant's functional limitations supported by the medical record. ... Because both the hypothetical posed to the VE and the RFC assessment reasonably accounted for Tonya's functional visual limitations supported by the record, the ALJ built an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to her conclusion.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to base an RFC assessment on all relevant evidence and explain the evidence supporting a finding about how frequently a claimant can perform a work activity.

Kowalski v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-19(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. ... Without further explanation from the ALJ, the determination that Plaintiff retained the ability to carry out frequent fine manipulation is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, a remand is required for the ALJ to clarify what record evidence supports the RFC assessment.

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

Webb v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-19(a)(3)

Given plaintiff’s testimony that he needed to lean on or touch something while standing, and the ALJ’s failure to cite any medical evidence that was inconsistent with that testimony, there is no substantial evidentiary support for the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff had the RFC to perform a job that required him to stand unassisted for at least 30 minutes.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC finding based on the claimant’s testimony, treatment records, and medical opinion evidence.

Graybill v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-19

An ALJ's RFC finding is based on all of the record evidence, including the claimant's testimony regarding symptoms and limitations, the claimant's medical treatment records, and the medical opinion evidence. See Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 969 (8th Cir.2010); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96–8p. ... She examined the entire record, and her opinion that there is “no sign that [Plaintiff] would need to raise her legs above waist level” during the workday is substantially supported by the evidence before her.

An RFC assessment considers relevant record evidence, including medical history, medical source statements, and descriptions and observations of the claimant’s abilities.

(SS) Maldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20(a)(3)

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). ... The RFC for light work is adequately explained and grounded in substantial evidence.

An RFC need not include a proposed off-task limitation when no medical opinion supports it.

Rhoades v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-26(a)(1)

The ALJ did not err in failing to do so simply because there is no medical opinion providing that she would be off task this amount of time. The ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to reflect the most a claimant can do despite impairments; a position-change limitation must have an explained evidentiary basis.

Elhenicky-Acosta v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29

This is the extent of the evidence the ALJ discussed when crafting the one-to-two minute alternating/changing positions limitation within the RFC; yet this evidence tells the Court nothing about how the ALJ determined this would be the most Plaintiff could do despite her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

An RFC must be supported by some medical evidence, but it need not be supported by a specific medical opinion.

Deck v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-21(a)(3)

Though an RFC must be based on and supported by some medical evidence, there is no requirement that it be supported by a specific medical opinion.

An RFC assessment need not include a claimed work limitation when the record contains no evidence supporting it.

Scott v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-18(a)(3)

The ALJ expressly did consider the work-related impairment as Plaintiff framed it. Finding no evidence to support the claim, there was no reason to include that impairment in the RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite her limitations; remand is unnecessary when the claimant identifies no evidence supporting greater limitations than the ALJ found.

Vuckovich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-18(a)(1)

The court agrees with the Commissioner that remand is unnecessary here because Plaintiff has proffered no evidence that she has greater limitations than those set forth by the ALJ.

Section 404.1545 assesses what a claimant can still do despite limitations; documented impairments and pain alone do not require off-task or absence restrictions in the RFC.

Roush v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-30(a)(1)

General reference to plaintiff’s extensive and substantiated record of physical impairments and pain does not necessarily compel the conclusion that they demand particular off-task or absence tolerances as part of his RFC assessment.

An RFC can be supported by treatment records and the medical record as a whole even without a medical opinion specifying its particular limitations.

Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-01(a)(3)

Although the Appeals Council did not specifically rely on a medical opinion regarding Plaintiff's specific limitations in the RFC, the RFC is supported by substantial evidence in the record in that the Appeals Council relied on Plaintiffs treatment records and the medical record as a whole.

An RFC assessment must account for later medical findings that could change the assessment of a claimant’s ability to work.

Ostrowski, Jr. v. Saul · filed 2022-12-01(a)(1)

Viewing the record as a whole, the ALJ erred in giving substantial weight to the opinions from state agency consultants who did not have access to additional findings that could have affected the outcome of the case. No physician evaluated Plaintiff’s physical functioning in light of the July 2018 MRI and radiculopathy tests, and the case must be remanded for further consideration of his RFC.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite limitations; the assessed handling, fingering, and reaching limits must have evidentiary support.

Hoskins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-14(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). ... The Court finds that the RFC for frequent handling, fingering, and overhead reaching is supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ did not err in considering the evidence of record related to this impairment.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite limitations; unsupported symptom allegations alone do not require additional limitations.

Sherman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-05(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). ... For all of these reasons, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination, and the Plaintiff has failed to show that the ALJ erred by not including any limitations related to urinary frequency, nocturia, or a need to nap.

An RFC assessment need not include a leg-elevation restriction when the evidence does not establish its frequency or effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Fontanez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-14(a)(3)

Moreover, the two treatment notes did not specify the frequency with which Ms. Estrada Fontanez should elevate her legs and whether it would impact her ability to complete a normal workday and perform sedentary work as provided in the RFC. ... The ALJ considered the entire record, and her RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires the RFC assessment to address mild limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace when they may affect the claimant’s ability to perform past work.

Brown v. Saul · filed 2023-02-21(a)(1)

In formulating the RFC, however, the ALJ did not mention this mild CPP restriction or incorporate it into the questions posed to the VE. ... Since the ALJ did not ask the VE whether mild limitations in CPP would affect Plaintiff's ability to perform her past work, the Court cannot be certain that the ALJ’s conclusion on this point is supported by substantial evidence. Remand is therefore necessary.

Residual functional capacity need not include limitations that the record does not support.

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

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that “no physician of record assigned such limitations, and ... there is no requirement to present limitations that are not borne out by the record.”

An RFC assessment may translate clinical findings into work limitations without copying a doctor's opinion exactly.

Hernandez v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-07

The residual functional capacity determination does not need to copy the exact opinion of any particular doctor, but “the ALJ is responsible for translating and incorporating clinical findings into a succinct” residual functional capacity.

An RFC assessment involving significant, complex overlapping impairments requires medical opinion support; an ALJ may not substitute lay judgment for it.

Thacker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-22(a)(1)

In this case, there is no medical opinion evidence whatsoever that might even partially support the ALJ’s RFC assessment. Further, in light of the significant and complex overlapping of her multiple impairments, the ALJ’s erred in substituting his own lay judgement on matters that should have been addressed by a medical opinion. This was error.

When determining residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider submitted medical opinions and prior administrative findings and evaluate their persuasiveness.

Fagan v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-22(a)(1)

When determining the residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider all medical opinions and prior administrative findings submitted and evaluate them for persuasiveness.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity need not adopt every limitation in a medical opinion found persuasive.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-24

Based on this caselaw, we cannot conclude that the ALJ was required to credit all aspects of the Martin and Galdieri prior administrative medical findings.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity; the ALJ need not adopt any one medical opinion verbatim.

Avila v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-29(a)(3)

But an ALJ is not required to exclusively rely on one medical opinion over another or rely on any one opinion verbatim.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to depart from portions of a medical opinion when assessing residual functional capacity based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Green v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-31(a)(3)

While “[a]n ALJ is not entitled to pick and choose through an uncontradicted medical opinion, taking only the parts that are favorable to a finding of nondisability,” Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205, 1208 (10th Cir.2007), it is not improper for an ALJ to deviate from portions of a medical opinion when making an RFC finding, see Chapo, 682 F.3d at 1288; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (stating that “[the ALJ] will assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence”).

An RFC may incorporate medical opinions by limiting public contact without adding a coworker-contact restriction the opinions do not specifically impose.

Fitzpatrick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-27

Therefore, the ALJ reasonably interpreted and incorporated the doctors’ opinions in the RFC by limiting Plaintiff’s contact with the general public, and the ALJ did not err by not restricting Plaintiff to only superficial contact with coworkers and other employees.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence, including medical opinions.

Beekman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-02

The ALJ alone is responsible for determining plaintiff’s RFC based on all the relevant evidence, including the medical opinions of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 404.1546. ... The Court concludes that the required explanation is lacking. Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ’s failure to include a pace restriction in his RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment is based on all relevant evidence and need not mirror any particular medical opinion.

(SS) Gegan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-08(a)(3)

The RFC need not mirror any particular opinion; it is an assessment formulated by the ALJ based on all relevant evidence.

Residual functional capacity measures the most work a claimant can perform despite limitations; claimed restrictions need not be included when the record does not support them.

Clark v. Saul · filed 2023-05-15(a)(1)

Viewing the record as a whole, the ALJ reasonably discounted Plaintiff’s claimed need to elevate her leg and nap during the day, and did not err in excluding such restrictions from the RFC.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to make an RFC finding consistent with the record after considering the medical evidence and analyzing the medical opinions, even if the finding does not exactly match a particular opinion.

Tomasik v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-15

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. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945; see also Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 177 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that remand is not necessary “[w]here an ALJ’s analysis at Step Four regarding a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions affords an adequate basis for meaningful judicial review, applies the proper legal standards, and is supported by substantial evidence”).

Section 404.1545 does not require an RFC finding to match a medical opinion or to be based on opinion evidence.

Sutton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-23

But that does not mean that the RFC needs to “perfectly correspond with any of the opinions of medical sources cited in [the ALJ’s] decision,” Matta, 508 F. App’x at 56, or even be based on opinion evidence, see Corbiere v. Berryhill, 760 F. App’x 54, 56 (2d Cir. 2019).

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

Ostrowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-30

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 RFC assessment need not include claimed functional limitations that the record does not support.

Dakic v. Saul · filed 2023-06-09(a)(1)

This argument fails because Plaintiff cites no evidence indicating that she actually has the stated functional limitations and no physician of record endorsed them.

Section 404.1545 allows an RFC that is consistent with the full record even if it does not exactly match a medical opinion.

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-20

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 RFC finding that work breaks can accommodate a claimant’s need to elevate her feet must be supported by evidence in the record.

Starks v. O'Malley · filed 2023-09-06(a)(1)

While the ALJ recited evidence in the record, there is virtually no analysis of the evidence such that the Court can determine what records were relied upon to make the RFC finding regarding Plaintiff’s need to elevate her feet. Thus, the Court concludes the RFC finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to include RFC limitations supported by the claimant’s symptom statements and other record evidence.

Damon v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-06(a)

Based on the ALJ’s evaluation of the evidence, including Plaintiff’s symptom statements and testimony, the ALJ reasonably included a limitation in the RFC that Plaintiff work at a job that allowed him to wear sunglasses or goggles.

An ALJ must consider the claimant’s medical condition as a whole and explain how the evidence supports the residual functional capacity assessment sufficiently for judicial review.

Getman v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-09-07(a)(3)

When making an RFC determination, an ALJ must consider the claimant’s medical condition as a whole and must provide a sufficient rationale to link the evidence to his RFC determination so that a court may conduct a meaningful review of his findings.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence; an ALJ cannot infer functional limitations from medical test results beyond a layperson’s competence.

Fitts v. P Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-12(a)(3)

In formulating an RFC, the ALJ must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” and all of the claimant’s “medically determinable impairments” about which the ALJ is aware. Id. § 404.1545(a)(2), (a)(3). ... The ALJ’s RFC was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the ALJ improperly drew unsupported inferences about the meaning of particular test results and statements in the medical records in relation to Fitts’s functional limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider the evidence as a whole and explain how it supports the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Boswell v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-09-21(a)(3)

The ALJ was required, however, to consider the evidence as a whole and to show how that evidence led to his RFC determination. And he did.

An ALJ’s RFC assessment must rest on relevant evidence; when medical data requires expert interpretation, the ALJ cannot supply that interpretation alone.

Sisk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-02(a)(3)

The ALJ impermissibly relied on his own interpretation of the medical data of record and improperly substituted his interpretation in place of the opinions of treating and state agency physicians. ... Under these circumstances, the ALJ’s RFC determination lacks adequate support to conclude that Plaintiff can perform medium work. Accordingly, remand is necessary.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment based on relevant evidence, including a claimant’s description of symptoms; supported findings may justify omitting additional limitations.

Little v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-25(a)(3)

It is also substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision not to include more significant IBS-related limitations in the RFC, including more frequent restroom breaks.

An ALJ may determine residual functional capacity from the record without a medical opinion matching the RFC.

Lucero Jr v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-13(a)(3)

Plaintiff is also incorrect that an “informed medical opinion” matching the RFC is a requirement for making a disability determination.

An ALJ must explain how the evidence supports the specific manipulative limits in a residual functional capacity assessment.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-04

But in doing so, the ALJ appears to have arbitrarily relied on a “different interpretation of the evidence” and “updated evidence,” without indication as to what those terms mean or how they support a limitation to frequent versus occasional handling, fingering, and feeling. ... This failure warrants remand.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an ALJ to base an RFC limitation on claimant testimony considered alongside medical evidence and opinions.

Cedeno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-05(a)(3)

The ALJ assesses a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... When developing the RFC, the ALJ considered the medical evidence, medical opinions of record, and the claimant’s testimony. The Court concludes that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision to include this limitation in the RFC.

An RFC assessment must account for limitations in credited medical opinions or explain why they were omitted.

Passantino v. Kilakazi · filed 2024-01-11(a)(1)

The ALJ erred in failing to incorporate Dr. Amon’s opinion that Plaintiff was “limited” in overhead reaching and instead finding Plaintiff had the RFC to perform “frequent overhead reaching,” or to explain why she did not incorporate this limitation.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence, including evidence of severe and non-severe impairments.

Crespo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-20(a)(1)-(3)

An ALJ must assess the RFC based on “all the relevant evidence in the [] record,” including the medical evidence, and must consider all the claimant’s impairments, both severe and non-severe. Id. § 404.1545(a)(1)-(3). ... Substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff could work in a job requiring occasional contact with coworkers, supervisors, and the general public.

Residual functional capacity is determined from all relevant evidence in the claimant’s record.

Alexander v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-20(a)(1)

An ALJ is charged with determining a claimant’s RFC based on all the relevant evidence in the claimant’s record.

An RFC assessment must be supported by evidence showing how a claimant’s impairments affect her ability to work; records that merely describe her conditions are insufficient.

Maddox v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-21(a)

In undertaking this analysis, however, the ALJ relied on evidence that merely describes Plaintiff’s conditions rather than demonstrating her ability to work despite those impairments.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence and the claimant’s ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.

Tate v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-23(a)(3)-(4)

An ALJ’s RFC assessment should be based on all relevant evidence and will consider the claimant’s ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work. ... The ALJ explained how she considered this evidence in formulating the RFC and so limiting the RFC to account for these medical issues.

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

(SS) Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-26(a)(3)

In reaching a finding regarding a claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider the record as a whole, not just medical opinions.

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

Barreras Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-26(a)(1), (a)(3)

In determining the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant medical and other evidence.

A medium-work residual functional capacity finding lacks substantial evidence when no medical opinion supports that capacity.

(SS) Dean v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-28(a)(1)

Without a medical opinion to support the conclusion that Plaintiff was able to perform medium work, the ALJ’s RFC lacks the support of substantial evidence.

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

(SS) Carlson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-29(a)(1)

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

An RFC limit specifying how frequently a claimant can perform visual tasks requires support from a medical opinion.

Frazey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-14(a)(3)

Because frequency is a specific functional limitation that requires a medical opinion, the ALJ erred when concluding that Plaintiff could “frequently perform work requiring near and far acuity and accommodation and field of vision” in the RFC without a corresponding medical opinion.

Residual functional capacity must be assessed from record evidence of a claimant’s limitations, rather than general warnings about potential medication side effects.

James v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-15

But this “evidence” is unpersuasive because the ALJ was required to determine James’ residual functional capacity based on the record—not warnings about potential side effects.

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

(SS) Igasan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-15(a)(1)

The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [her] limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.”

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC determination to consider all relevant evidence, including medical sources’ diagnoses, treatment, observations, and opinions.

Sardina v. Kijakazki · filed 2024-03-15(a)(3)

An RFC determination must be based on “all the relevant evidence” including the diagnoses, treatment, observations, and opinions of medical sources.

Residual functional capacity is determined from all relevant evidence, including the claimant’s symptoms, testimony, medical evidence, and daily activities.

Rudloff v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-15(a)

Instead, the RFC must be determined by the ALJ based on all the relevant evidence, which includes her subjective symptoms, her testimony, the medical evidence, and her daily activities.

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

Kopcial, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-15(a)

A claimant’s RFC is an indication of an individual’s work-related abilities despite their limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for supported work-related limitations arising from a claimant’s impairments.

Alshatti v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-18(a)(1)

The ALJ, in assessing the RFC, omitted various work-related functions that would have accounted for Dr. Ragsdale’s most severe finding.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can still do despite limitations, and an ALJ’s assessment may be affirmed when supported by substantial evidence.

Vera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-18(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). ... Here, the ALJ assessed an RFC that is supported by substantial evidence.

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

MYHAND v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-03-19(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to incorporate evidence discussed at step two into the residual functional capacity analysis when assessing mental limitations.

Lee v. Social Security · filed 2024-03-19

Third, although the ALJ in this case, like the ALJ in Webb, did not “extensively discuss” Plaintiff’s mental impairments at step four, she “thoroughly discussed the evidence supporting her findings at step two,” incorporated them into her RFC analysis and specifically considered the mental limitations evidence in both Plaintiff’s testimony and the objective medical evidence in her RFC analysis.

Section 404.1545(a)(4) requires an RFC assessment to consider the claimant’s ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.

GANEY v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-03-20(a)(4)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the AL] must consider that individual’s “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(4). ... Thus, given the extensive exertional, postural, handling, and environmental limitations already included in the RFC and expressly based, in large part, on Plaintiffs neck impairment, the Court finds no basis for remand.

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

(SS) Miranda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-20(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.”

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

(SS) Corralejo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-20(a)

Residual functional capacity is what a person “can still do despite [the individual’s] limitations.”

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

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-20(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(4) calls for assessing a claimant’s ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work when formulating residual functional capacity.

Hightower v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-03-21(a)(4)

As previously discussed, at step four of the sequential analysis the ALJ formulates a claimant’s RFC by assessing his or her “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(4).

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

Olivas v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-22(a)(1)

The RFC represents the maximum level of work a claimant can do in a work setting despite mental and physical limitations. ... In short, even with a liberal reading of Plaintiff’s arguments—the RFC assessment is consistent with the record, supported by substantial evidence, and does not warrant reversal.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do despite limitations and must reflect limitations supported by the medical record.

Quackenboss, Trista v. Kijakazi, Kilolo · filed 2024-03-25(a)(1)

An ALJ's RFC findings are intended to capture “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” ... Rather, the ALJ tailored the RFC to the limitations adequately supported by the medical record.

An RFC assessment uses all relevant evidence and must be supported by medical evidence addressing the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace.

Allen v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2024-03-25(a)(1)

RFC is the most that a person can do despite that person’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a)(1). It is assessed using all relevant evidence in the record. Id. ... The ALJ’s failure to support his RFC assessment with medical evidence that addressed Plaintiff’s ability to function in the workplace was reversible error.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC determination to consider all relevant evidence, including medical sources’ diagnoses, treatment, observations, and opinions.

Sullivan v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-25

However, an RFC determination must be based on all of the relevant evidence, including the diagnoses, treatment, observations, and opinions of medical sources, such as treating and examining physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider both severe and nonsevere impairments; a supported limit to simple, routine, repetitive work can account for memory and concentration problems.

Kelly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-25

In evaluating an individual’s RFC, the ALJ considers impairments that are both “severe” and “not severe”, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). ... Plaintiff’s contention is without merit. ... The ALJ recognized that plaintiff had problems with memory and concentration (PageID.31-32) and limited him to simple, routine, repetitive work.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite his limitations; an ALJ’s assessment may be upheld when substantial evidence, including sufficient medical evidence, supports it.

Isaiah v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-25(a)(1)

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

An RFC determination is supported when the ALJ relies on clinical findings and accounts for the claimant’s impairments in the work restrictions.

Betancourt v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-31(a)(1)

Given the ALJ’s reliance on the clinical findings explained above and his generation of an RFC that accounted for Plaintiff's cardiovascular history and his spine and shoulder problems, there was no error in the ALJ’s generation of Plaintiff's RFC.

An RFC that omits a limitation on supervisor contact requires remand when substantial evidence does not support the omission.

Penn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-19(a)

Because the AL]’s decision to omit a limitation to occasional contact with supervisors into the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ’s failure to do so constitutes reversible error and requires remand.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC finding consistent with the record when the ALJ considers all medical evidence and appropriately analyzes the medical opinions.

Steele v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-22

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.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires a medical opinion to be specific enough for the ALJ to determine what the claimant can still do despite limitations.

Maggard v. SSA · filed 2024-07-22(a)(1)

Thus, the opinion lacked the specificity required for the ALJ to determine “the most [Plaintiff] can still do despite [Plaintiff’s] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

An ALJ assesses residual functional capacity using relevant record evidence and may omit a driving limitation when the evidence does not support it.

Lozano v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-12(a)(1)-(3)

In sum, I find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s exclusion of any driving limitation in Plaintiff’s RFC.

An ALJ must obtain expert interpretation of new, potentially decisive imaging before relying on it to assess residual functional capacity.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-15(a)

Rather, the reports should be interpreted by an expert and only then should the ALJ rely on them in forming Mr. Davis’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when determining what a claimant can still do despite her limitations.

Church v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-15(a)

An RFC finding is a determination of the most that the claimant can do in a work setting despite her limitations, and is based on an assessment of all of the relevant medical and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), (8). ... Notwithstanding Plaintiffs arguments to the contrary, the ALJ did not mischaracterize the evidence, both limitations are supported by substantial evidence, and Plaintiff has not met her burden to demonstrate a more restrictive RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess physical and mental limitations in determining residual functional capacity, but does not require separate RFC restrictions for every nonsevere mental limitation.

Archuleta v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-15(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, 751 F.2d at 1085 (residual functional capacity reflects current “physical and mental capabilities”). ... Like in Woods, here, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err for failing to include nonsevere mental limitations in his RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to base residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence, including the effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Pierce v. O'Malley · filed 2024-11-18(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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5. ... However, it fails to include any actual evaluation of Plaintiff’s need to lie down.

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

Kelly v. SSA · filed 2024-11-20(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)(1) measures residual functional capacity by what a claimant can still do despite limitations, rather than by what a physician believes the claimant can do.

(SS) Uptain v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-21(a)(1)

The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [one’s] limitations” not the most a physician believes (even justifiably so) that the claimant can do.

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) Trede v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-21(a)(1)

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

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

Browning v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-22(a)(1)

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

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations and must be assessed using all relevant evidence, including material limitations reflected in a medical opinion.

Culwell v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2024-11-26(a)(1)

RFC is the most that a person can do despite that person’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a)(1). It is assessed using all relevant evidence in the record. Id. ... The conflict between the ALJ’s RFC and Dr. Al-Khatib’s opinion was not minor and was not resolved within the ALJ’s opinion.

A residual functional capacity assessment need not include a service dog when the evidence does not show that the dog enables the claimant to perform work-related functions.

Soileau v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2024-12-03(a)

As the Commissioner correctly notes, Plaintiff did not establish that her dog Tank enables her to perform any work-related functions that she would otherwise be unable to do without the dog. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (stating that a residual functioning capacity assessment addresses impairments that “may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what you can do in a work setting”).

An RFC finding need not be supported by a particular medical opinion.

Jularic v. King · filed 2025-01-29

The ALJ is not required to support an RFC with a particular medical opinion.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to explain how an off-task limitation accounts for the claimant’s supported impairments.

Bradberry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-18

As with the previous appeal, the ALJ’s decision includes no clear or logical connection to the evidence in the record that would allow the Court to meaningfully review the ALJ’s RFC assessment stating that Ms. Bradberry needs an accommodation of only five minutes a month of time off-task.

An RFC assessment must have evidentiary support for its functional limits, and the ALJ must explain how those limits were determined.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-12(a)

Because the ALJ rejected the medical opinions in the record and provided an insufficient explanation of the evidence in the record relied upon to support his conclusion that Petitioner was able to perform a reduced range of light work, the Court cannot determine how the ALJ arrived at the RFC or find that the ALJ’s disability determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 does not require an RFC to include unscheduled restroom breaks when the evidence supports managing the alleged condition without them.

Schultz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-10(a)(1)

The ALJ was not required to add unscheduled restroom breaks in the RFC because overall, the evidence supports relatively conservative treatment and management of the Crohn’s disease.

A claimant must provide evidence showing how an impairment limits functional capacity; unsupported proposed qualitative RFC limitations do not require remand.

McAlister v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-12(a)(3)

Mr. M bears the burden of providing evidence establishing the degree to which his impairments limit his functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a), 404.1545(a)(3); see also Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 712 (7th Cir. 2011). ... Although Mr. M argues that the ALJ should have assessed qualitative limitations for his social interactions and ability to respond to change, he fails to indicate what qualitative limitations should have been assessed and how such limitations are supported by the evidence. Without more, the Court cannot find that remand is appropriate on this basis.

An ALJ must explain how the evidence supports a claimant’s residual functional capacity, including the ability to perform light work despite a progressive illness.

MCDANIEL v. DUDEK · filed 2025-03-27(a)

A claimant’s “residual functional capacity” or “RFC” is the most he can do in a work setting, despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... Therefore, despite a lack of reliable data prior to this result, the burden falls on the ALJ to explain the logical bridge between his finding Ronald M. was disabled due to a progressively worsening disease from October 2, 2020 and beyond, but still had the capacity to perform light work prior to the October 2, 2020 examination.

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

Spence v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-27(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)(1) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant record evidence when determining residual functional capacity.

Mayo v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-03-28(a)(1)

An ALJ has the duty to consider all the relevant record evidence in making the RFC determination, and here, the ALJ properly executed that duty.