20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

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

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

RFC is an assessment of the most a claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis despite her limitations.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s need for an emotional support dog should be included in the residual functional capacity assessment.

DeAngelis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-28

Here, the ALJ failed to consider in the first instance whether Plaintiff has a need for the emotional support dog such that it should be included in his RFC.

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

(SS) Taresli Ortega v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-28(a)

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

Section 404.1545(a) calls for an RFC assessment of what a claimant can do despite her impairments, based on relevant evidence and supported by substantial evidence.

Bednar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-29(a)

The RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite the limitations imposed by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a). ... In this case, the ALJ supported her RFC determination with substantial evidence and accurately characterized both Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and the medical evidence.

An RFC must reflect the most a claimant can do despite limitations; it need not impose a restriction broader than the credited medical opinion supports.

Wilds v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2025-03-31(a)(1)

Because Wilds’s RFC must reflect “the most” he can do, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), it makes sense that the ALJ understood Dr. Pennington’s statement to indicate that Wilds could occasionally balance (i.e., at least when walking up to fifty feet) but required a cane when traveling longer distances. If the RFC had credited Dr. Pennington’s “yes” to mean that Wilds required a cane for balance at all times, then it would extend Dr. Pennington’s stated limitation beyond the parameters reflected in the Statement and would not reflect the most that Wilds could do.

Residual functional capacity is the maximum work a claimant can perform despite her limitations, and its assessment must account for the totality of those limitations.

YOUNCE v. DUDEK · filed 2025-03-31(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); SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5, 1996 WL 374184, at *2. ... Here, the ALJ said enough to ensure that he considered the totality of Cleo's limitations in formulating the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including limitations from non-severe impairments.

Bishop v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-31

In making a proper RFC determination, the ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence in the record, even as to limitations that are not severe.

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

Williams v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-03-31(a)(3)

In formulating an RFC, an ALJ uses “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); ... The Court may therefore consider these opinions in assessing whether the ALJ’s RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations; the assessment can be supported by the record as a whole without relying on a specific medical opinion.

Swafford v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-03-31(a)(1)

The RFC is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite” his physical or mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... As an initial matter, the ALJ was not required to adopt or give additional weight to Dr. Gwartney’s and Dr. Hingst’s opinions simply because there is little medical opinion evidence in the record. ... After considering the evidence in the record as a whole, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform sedentary work with postural and environmental limitations during the relevant period of disability.

An ALJ may rely on a medical expert’s narrative assessment of mental residual functional capacity when it adequately reflects the expert’s underlying findings.

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-04(a)

In fashioning that mental RFC, the ALJ reasonably relied on the findings of Dr. Coyle, whose narrative RFC adequately encapsulates and translates her worksheet observations.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; the assessment must include functional limitations supported by the record.

Raymond v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-04(a)

The ALJ is responsible for determining a plaintiff’s RFC, which is the most a claimant can do despite existing limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 404.1546(c), 416.945(a). The RFC must include all of the claimant’s functional limitations supported by the record.

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

Price v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-08(a)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s general assertions, the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record and comports with applicable law (Tr. 20-22). The RFC determination is the ALJ’s ultimate determination of what Plaintiff can still do despite his physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 404.1546(c).

Section 404.1545 allows an RFC finding based on examination findings and other record evidence without a specific supporting medical opinion.

Hunt v. Dudek · filed 2025-04-09(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no functional medical evidence available in the record after the ALJ discounted the medical opinions fails, as there is no requirement that the RFC finding be supported by a specific medical opinion, and the examination findings considered by the ALJ speak directly to Plaintiff’s ability to function in the workplace.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC to include functional limitations supported by the record; an ALJ need not include a limitation based on properly discredited testimony without supporting medical evidence.

Chen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-17(a)

The ALJ did not err in not including a limitation regarding the amount of time plaintiff would be off task due to hallucinations because the ALJ properly discredited plaintiff’s subjective testimony and there was a lack of evidence in the medical record to support this limitation.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence and supported by evidence of the claimant’s functional limitations.

(SS) Black v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-16(a)(1)-(3)

An RFC is the most a claimant can do despite their limitations and is based upon all relevant evidence in the record, including medical records, medical source statements, and symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)-(3); Shafer v. Barnhart, 120 F. Appx. 688, 698 (9th Cir. 2005). ... Lacking any medical opinions, the ALJ relied on their own interpretation of the medical records in formulating the RFC. In so doing, the ALJ improperly acted as their own medical expert by assigning RFC limitations without any medical opinion of Plaintiff’s physical functioning. The Court is therefore unable conclude that the RFC was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including the claimant’s testimony; a bathroom proximity restriction need not be included when the record does not support it.

Nicholson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-18

In formulating an RFC, the ALJ must evaluate “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including the claimant’s testimony. ... Here, there is no evidence in the record of any of Plaintiff's treatment providers, or the state agency consultants, stating that he needs to be in a specific “proximity” to a bathroom.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the record as a whole, even when a specific limitation does not precisely match a medical opinion.

Wolkiewicz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-25

At the same time, however, deviating from the expert medical testimony concerning a claimant’s functional capacity is not always error. ... The ALJ was entitled to (and did) consider all of this testimony, and he synthesized it by concluding that, for simplicity’s sake, a 50% restriction made the most sense. The Court concludes that the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff was able to sit for prolonged periods if she had the ability to elevate her legs half of the time.

An RFC need not include a limitation for a symptom when the record does not support a work-related limitation during the relevant period.

Irvin B. v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-21(a)(1)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s omission of headache/migraines in his Step-Two analysis, no error in the ALJ’s failure to perform a Listing analysis of headaches/migraines at Step Three and no error in the ALJ’s failure to adopt an RFC limitation to accommodate headaches/migraines.

An ALJ must logically connect the evidence to the residual functional capacity assessment and cannot choose an unsupported middle ground after rejecting the relevant medical opinions.

Koepke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-28

This approach, constructing a middle ground without logically connecting the evidence to the RFC findings, is impermissible.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires residual functional capacity to describe the most a claimant can still do despite limitations.

Mccoy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-30(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC must be couched in terms of “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [their] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the ability to perform physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite impairment-related limitations.

Byrne v. O'Malley · filed 2025-08-11

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

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

Hudson v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-13(a)

A claimant’s residual functional capacity is the maximum a claimant can do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2.

An RFC must have some medical evidence behind it, but it need not match a medical opinion.

Perry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-20(a)(3)

Although some medical evidence must support the RFC, an ALJ is not required to base an RFC on a corresponding medical opinion.

An ALJ need not tie an RFC limitation to a specific provider’s report when the record supports the limitation and the ALJ’s reasoning can be discerned.

Junker v. O' Malley · filed 2025-08-22(a)(3)

Although the ALJ did not explicitly state that he derived the simple work tasks limitation in Plaintiff’s RFC from a specific provider’s report, the ALJ is not required to provide such a clear recitation of specific terms.

Section 404.1545 allows an ALJ to vary from a persuasive medical opinion when the RFC decision provides a sufficient basis to understand the variation.

Thomas v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-19

Even if he finds an opinion persuasive, the ALJ need not accept every word so long as the ALJ provides a sufficient basis for the Court to understand the ALJ’s implicit or explicit variation from the opinion.

Section 404.1545 does not require remand merely because no medical opinion directly supports an RFC when the record supports no greater limitations and the claimant shows no prejudice.

Dudek · filed 2025-10-09

Instead, Johnson argues the case must be remanded because there was no medical opinion that supported the RFC. In fact, the State agency consultants’ opinions supported no limitations; and there were no opinions that supported more restrictive limitations. “The party seeking to overturn the Commissioner’s decision has the burden to show that prejudice resulted from an error.” Madkins v. Bisignano, 150 F.4th 657, 663 (5th Cir. 2025). Johnson cannot show such prejudice.

An ALJ may use earlier administrative medical findings to determine residual functional capacity if the ALJ evaluates their reliability in light of later clinical findings.

McCrady · filed 2025-10-22

However, an ALJ may make an RFC finding consistent with prior administrative medical findings despite the fact that they were rendered earlier in the administrative process, where, as here, the ALJ evaluates the reliability of the earlier medical opinions in light of the updated clinical findings.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ determining physical residual functional capacity to have the benefit of a medical opinion about the claimant’s physical capability, though the opinion need not exactly match the resulting assessment.

Cochran · filed 2025-10-27(a)

In so finding, the Court does not suggest that the ALJ must obtain a medical opinion that exactly matches the RFC found; rather, the ALJ cannot make a physical RFC determination without the benefit of any medical opinion regarding Plaintiff’s physical capability.

An RFC finding need not exactly match a medical opinion when the ALJ explains how the medical evidence supports it.

Nguyen · filed 2026-01-26(a)

In short, this is not a case where the ALJ simply considered the raw data. Rather, the ALJ explained how he considered the medical opinions in addition to Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) allows medical source statements about what a claimant can still do to support an RFC assessment, whether or not they are based on formal examinations.

Lindsey C. F. v. Bisignano · filed 2026-01-20(a)(3)

The other available medical opinions from Dr. Sherrill and the state agency physicians, which suggested fewer mental restrictions than the ALJ assessed for Plaintiff (see AR 68-69, 87-88, 436-37), furnish substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC assessment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (in determining a claimant’s RFC, the Administration will consider medical source statements about what a claimant can still do, whether or not based on formal medical examinations).

An RFC finding need not be supported by a specific medical opinion when examination findings show the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace.

Eye · filed 2026-02-19(a)(1)

Plaintiff's assertion that the ALJ drew impermissible inferences instead of obtaining a medical opinion fails, as there is no requirement that the RFC finding be supported by a specific medical opinion, and the examination findings considered by the ALJ speak directly to Plaintiff's ability to function in the workplace.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) measures what a claimant can do despite her limitations; a claimed need for unscheduled breaks and absences did not require additional RFC limits without a supporting medical opinion.

Lemmon · filed 2026-03-05(a)(1)

The RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite her limitations. ... Accordingly, the Court finds no error in the RFC assessed by the ALJ because the Plaintiff has not pointed to any medical opinion in the record supporting the Plaintiff’s claim of needing unscheduled breaks and absences.

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant evidence to determine the most a claimant can do despite limitations.

Conway · filed 2026-03-09(a)(1)

The ALJ considered this disorder to be a severe impairment and limited her RFC accordingly. Substantial evidence supports this finding, and the medical evidence does not support the severe restrictions Conway alleges.

An RFC assessment may be made without a medical opinion assessing work abilities when the available evidence is sufficient.

Ploesser · filed 2026-03-10(a)(1)

On the specific facts here, including the ALJ’s consideration of normal objective findings in 2019 and the complete absence of treatment for the relevant conditions for more than two years prior to the date last insured, the Court finds the evidence was sufficient for the ALJ to reach an RFC finding without obtaining additional medical evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to base the RFC on all relevant evidence, but does not require a medical opinion to support each RFC limitation.

Jamie S. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-03-16(a)(1)-(5)

The ALJ must base the RFC on all relevant evidence in the record, including the claimant’s descriptions of her limitations and symptoms, objective medical evidence, medical opinions, other medical evidence, evidence from non-medical sources, and prior administrative medical findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)-(5). None of these regulations require the ALJ to find that a medical opinion, as opposed to other evidence in the record, supports each component and limitation of the RFC. This Court therefore declines to impose such a requirement.

An ALJ need not investigate additional RFC restrictions based on a proposed interaction between impairments when the record does not support it.

Nicol · filed 2026-03-20(a)(2)

The ALJ was not required to explore when the record did not show any intellectual dysfunction à la diabetic mismanagement that might warrant additional work-related restrictions.

An RFC finding that a claimant can remain on task while changing positions needs evidentiary support and an explanation connecting the evidence to that finding.

Legel · filed 2026-03-24(a)(1)

The RFC is the most someone “can do despite their mental and physical limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) and § 416.945(a)(1); S.S.R. 96-8p(5) (emphasis added). ... Without any explanation or medical opinion relied upon for this limitation, the Court cannot determine what evidence supported the “on task” determination.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; the assessment must be supported by the record as a whole.

Musteen · filed 2026-03-20(a)(1)

A social security claimant's RFC is “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Because the ALJ appropriately considered the medical evidence supporting Mr. Musteen’s headache-related claims and nonetheless determined that he could perform sedentary work with some limitations, the Court concludes that Mr. Musteen’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; an error in evaluating testimony can undermine that determination.

Kuckler · filed 2026-03-20(a)(1)

The RFC is a measure of “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2. ... This error affected the ALJ’s determination of Plaintiff’s RFC. Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ erred in determining the RFC at step four.

An RFC determination must be supported by evidence showing how the claimant’s impairments limit the ability to work; descriptions of the impairments alone are insufficient.

Steven M. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-03-20(a)(3)

But evidence that merely describes Plaintiff’s impairments without discussing how those impairments limit his ability to work is insufficient to support the RFC determination.

An RFC may account for concentration, persistence, and pace limitations through a simple, routine tasks restriction when that restriction is consistent with the supported medical evidence.

McGuin · filed 2026-03-23

Accordingly, the “simple and routine tasks” limitation was consistent with the credible and properly supported limitations on the record before the ALJ, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC.

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

Bisignano · filed 2026-03-23(a)(3)

The record shows the ALJ adequately considered Dr. Paney’s report in assessing Ms. S.’s RFC.

An ALJ must assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; an assessment based on the ALJ’s unsupported interpretation of medical findings is insufficient.

Armstrong · filed 2026-03-24(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). ... Thus, the Court finds the ALJ’s RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess an RFC with greater limitations than the medical opinions specify when the record supports them.

Gibson · filed 2026-03-30

The ALJ nevertheless afforded Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and concluded that additional limitations were warranted. This is not error on the ALJ’s part.

An RFC assessment must account for relevant medical evidence, and the ALJ must explain why a conflicting medical opinion was not adopted.

Tally v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-01-28(a)(3)

By determining that Plaintiff had a residual functional capacity for sedentary work without any limitation on sitting, the ALJ was required to state specific and legitimate reasons for why Dr. Schoene’s medical opinion about Plaintiff’s limited ability to sit was not adopted.

An ALJ may give a medical opinion less than controlling weight when the residual functional capacity assessment accounts for its limitations instead of relying on the ALJ’s own interpretation of the medical evidence.

Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-09(a)

Irrespective of the terminology used by the ALJ, whether it be “great weight,” “little weight,” “some weight,” or “no weight,” the relevant inquiry is whether the ALJ in fact incorporates or accounts for the limitations assessed by the medical professional in the RFC, as opposed to basing the RFC upon his or her own lay interpretation of the medical evidence.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity may discount a medical opinion when the physician’s examination findings conflict with the limitations the physician proposes.

Hornsby v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16(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). ... It was reasonable for the ALJ to realize these physical exam findings conflicted with Dr. Woods’s assessment of Hornsby’s RFC and for the ALJ to resolve that conflict by discounting Dr. Woods’s opinion.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant, credible evidence, including medical records, clinicians’ observations, and the claimant’s account of her limitations.

Trosper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-10(a)

The ALJ bears the primary responsibility for assessing a claimant’s RFC based on all relevant, credible evidence in the record, including medical records, the observations of treating physicians and others, and the claimant’s own description of her symptoms and limitations. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 793 (8th Cir. 2005); Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

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

Puckett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-21(a)(3)

The Administrative Law Judge makes this finding based on a consideration of medical opinions, prior administrative medical findings, and all other evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 404.1529, 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c).

An expert residual functional capacity evaluation is ordinarily needed to compare a claimant’s limitations with past work once the claimant identifies functional loss that may prevent that work, unless the effect is apparent to a lay person.

Luz M. SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1991-05-28(a)

Once this threshold is crossed, the AU has the obligation to measure the requirements of former work against the claimant’s capabilities; and, to make that measurement, an expert’s RFC evaluation is ordinarily essential unless the extent of functional loss, and its effect on job performance, would be apparent even to a lay person.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to be based on relevant evidence of a claimant’s functional abilities; an ALJ cannot infer those abilities from raw medical data alone.

Howell v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-14(a)(1)-(3)

In formulating an RFC, an ALJ cannot interpret raw medical data. ... The ALJ erred by using his own interpretation and judgment of raw medical data to formulate Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite impairments; the assessed limitations must be supported by the evidence.

Mathews v. Saul · filed 2022-09-14

This is the extent of the evidence the ALJ discussed when crafting the sitting limitation within the RFC, yet this evidence tells the Court nothing about how the ALJ determined sitting for six hours or that standing/walking for two hours would be the most Plaintiff could do despite her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment based on the relevant evidence of what a claimant can do despite credible limitations.

Powell-Bey v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-14

The Court also finds that the ALJ did not impermissibly make interpretations of the medical findings, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ's RFC determination.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC finding that is consistent with the record when the ALJ considers the medical evidence and appropriately analyzes the medical opinions, even if the finding does not match every limitation in a medical opinion.

Chance v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-10

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) concerns an adult’s residual functional capacity and does not govern whether a child’s impairment equals a listed impairment.

Steven D. Hickman, Jr. v. Kenneth Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1999-08-06(a)

Hickman, however, correctly points out that the quoted language from Diaz, and the two cited regulations, deal not with child disability impairment determinations, but with the question, appearing only in adult cases, of “residual functional capacity,” i.e., how much the adult can do despite his impairment.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence; when an ALJ adopts most limitations in a substantially persuasive opinion, the ALJ must explain why other limitations are omitted.

Conway v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-25(a)(1)

Social Security regulations require that the RFC assessment is “based on all the relevant evidence in the record.” Id. at 1001, citing 20 CFR § 404.1545(a)(1). ... While an ALJ is not required to adopt any single medical opinion as the evidentiary basis for the RFC, once the ALJ finds an opinion substantially persuasive and adopts almost all of the limitations set forth in a consultant’s opinion, the ALJ is required to explain why he finds certain functional restrictions persuasive and includes them in the RFC and not others, such as the limitation in this case that Claimant have only brief, superficial, and task-oriented interaction with coworkers and supervisors.

An RFC assessment that assigns an off-task limitation must explain how the evidence supports that limitation.

Kennedy v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-06(a)(1)

Since the ALJ assigned Plaintiff an off-task limitation of nine percent in the RFC, the ALJ was required to provide an accompanying explanation. Such an explanation is missing in the ALJ's decision, warranting remand.

Specific limitations in a residual functional capacity assessment must have support in the record.

Harrington v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20

If an ALJ includes a “highly-specific” limitation in the claimant’s RFC, that limitation cannot come from whole cloth.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must address relevant medical findings that bear on the claimant’s ability to perform the assigned level of work.

Manney v. Barnhart · filed 2004-04-07(a)

The ALJ, in her decision, however, failed to address these medical findings and how these medical findings and diagnoses would affect Plaintiffs ability to perform a limited range of medium work. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ erred by ignoring or failing to address relevant medical evidence that is favorable to Plaintiff.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider the full record, including a claimant’s statements about limits on walking, sitting, and standing, when assessing residual functional capacity.

McBride v. Massanari · filed 2001-05-01

Since an ALJ must consider all of the evidence and discuss significant evidence contrary to his ruling, the absence of addressing the Claimant’s pain and suffering when walking, sitting, or standing for short periods of time is problematic.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC determination to account for all relevant evidence, including evidence that supports the claimant's limitations.

Brunei v. SSA · filed 2002-01-07(a)

The ALJ is not free to simply ignore relevant evidence in the record, especially when that evidence supports a claimant's cause.

An RFC assessment must explain how the evidence supports its conclusions; identifying the medical sources for the assessed limitations can satisfy that requirement.

Forson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2003-04-15

Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion that the ALJ is silent as to the medical evidence the ALJ considered in formulating the RFC determination, the Court finds that the ALJ specifically identified the medical sources of the limitations he included in the RFC assessment. The Court, therefore, holds that the ALJ provided an adequate narrative discussion of how the medical evidence and other evidence of record supports each conclusion in his assessment of Plaintiffs RFC.

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant evidence and explain the basis for the claimant’s remaining work capacity.

Santiago v. Barnhart · filed 2005-04-12(a)

In determining a plaintiffs RFC, the ALJ should consider all the relevant evidence. ... In the present case, the ALJ considered all the relevant evidence and adequately discussed the bases for her RFC determination in her findings and evaluation of the evidence.

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

Pearson v. Barnhart · filed 2005-08-09(a)

Residual functional capacity is defined as that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairments. ... Without discussing medical evidence pertaining to the plaintiffs limitations or work-related abilities, the ALJ merely concluded that plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity for light work. ... The ALJ’s residual functional analysis falls short of what the Social Security Regulations require.

An RFC finding must account for evidence of limitations on gripping and grasping, and the ALJ must explain why that evidence was given no weight.

Jolly v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-27(a)

The ALJ did not explain why he gave no weight to the medical evidence that Plaintiffs ability to grip and grasp is compromised by her impairments. Accordingly, the court finds that the ALJ’s determination of Plaintiffs RFC is not supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ must assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence and minimally articulate the reasoning behind the assessment.

Simms v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-30(a)(1)

The ALJ must assess the RFC based on all relevant evidence of record. ... However, although the ALJ’s “bridge building” here was cursory, an ALJ must only “minimally articulate his reasoning,” which the ALJ did here.

An ALJ must base the residual functional capacity assessment on the record evidence and justify the extent of a claimant’s limitations.

Brouillette v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-28(a)(3)

Accordingly, the ALJ must assess the RFC based on all relevant and medical evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Although the ALJ’s determination may in fact be correct, it is difficult to assess the overall accuracy of the final determination as the ALJ did not take into account the treating source’s opinion nor did he provide a justification for concluding the extent of Plaintiffs respiratory nonexertional limitations.

A residual functional capacity assessment must discuss the claimant’s abilities.

Ficca v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-28

The residual functional capacity assessment must include a discussion of the individual’s abilities.

An RFC finding describing handling and fingering as “frequent to occasional” is inadequate when those terms have distinct meanings and the distinction determines whether the claimant can perform past work.

Owens v. Colvin · filed 2013-08-23

We agree with Owens that the ALJ erred in determining his residual functional capacity as “frequent to occasional” handling and fingering, because “frequent” and “occasional” are separate terms of art with distinct meanings.

Section 404.1545(b)–(d) lists illustrative functions for assessing residual functional capacity; an ALJ’s failure to discuss every function explicitly does not automatically require remand when the analysis permits meaningful review and is supported by substantial evidence.

Cichocki v. Astrue · filed 2013-09-05(b), (c), (d)

As already noted, the functions in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 20 CFR §§ 404.1545 and 416.945 are only illustrative of the functions potentially relevant to an RFC assessment. ... Where 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 such that additional analysis would be unnecessary or superfluous, we agree with our sister Circuits that remand is not necessary merely because an explicit function-by-function analysis was not performed.

An RFC assessment may be upheld without an explicit function-by-function analysis when the ALJ considers the relevant functions and substantial evidence supports the assessment.

Diakogiannis v. Astrue · filed 2013-09-30

An ALJ’s failure to express a claimant’s RFC in a function-by-function analysis does not necessarily mandate remand so long as the RFC is otherwise supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess each work-related limitation at issue when determining residual functional capacity.

Winslow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-05-15

Winslow next argues that the ALJ failed to perform a function-by-function assessment of her RFC as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945 and SSR 96-8p. The record reflects, however, that the ALJ complied with the applicable regulations by assessing each of Winslow’s work-related limitations that were at issue.

An ALJ’s failure to provide an explicit function-by-function assessment of residual functional capacity does not require remand when the analysis permits meaningful review and is supported by substantial evidence.

Brown v. Colvin · filed 2014-06-10

Because the Commissioner’s decision denying Brown disability benefits is supported by substantial evidence, and because that decision included a thorough analysis of the evidence of Brown’s physical and mental limitations, the only basis for remanding this case to the Commissioner would be the ALJ’s omission of a “function-by-function analysis.” In this Circuit, however, “the failure explicitly to engage in such a function-by-function analysis does not constitute a per se error requiring remand.” Cichocki, 729 F.3d at ' 173-74. Finding no other basis for reversal or remand, the Court affirms the Com*201missioner’s decision to deny Brown’s application for disability benefits.

An RFC assessment satisfies the requirement to consider physical functions when the ALJ evaluates the claimant’s supported functional limitations, even without a separate explicit analysis of each function.

Brown v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-10(b)

The functions described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945 include physical abilities such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions; mental abilities such as understanding, remembering, carrying out instructions, and responding appropriately to supervision; and other abilities that may be affected by impairments, such as seeing, hearing, and the ability to tolerate environmental factors. ... In the court’s view, this analysis complies with the Regulations, Rulings, and controlling case law discussed herein regarding the requirements for considering a claimant’s functional abilities on a function-by-function basis.

An RFC assessment considers functions including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, stooping, and crouching; the ALJ’s consideration of the evidence can support the resulting RFC.

Schemelia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-06-09(b), (c), and (d)

As Plaintiff identifies, Sections (b), (c), and (d) of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 include the following functions: sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, stooping, and crouching. ... The Court finds this consideration by the ALJ to be substantial evidence upon which to base the RFC determination. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err as alleged by Plaintiff in this regard.

When a residual functional capacity assessment conflicts with medical opinions the agency says it credits, the agency must explain the discrepancy.

Parker v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2019-04-30

Given the discrepancy between the agency’s assessment of mental capacity and the medical opinions, the agency had an obligation to provide an explanation.

Section 404.1545 concerns what a claimant can still do despite impairments; an RFC finding must adequately explain why identified mental limitations were omitted.

WEIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-25(a)(1)

The Court finds that, because the ALJ did in fact fail to address properly the opinion of Dr. Deines, and further failed to provide an adequate explanation for his decision not to include any mental functioning limitations in Plaintiff’s RFC, it is not apparent to the Court on what evidence the ALJ relied in formulating the RFC. Because the Court cannot determine whether the RFC is supported by substantial evidence, the Court will remand the case for further consideration.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for the claimant’s limitations and explain how the evidence supports the assessed capacity to work.

Peters v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-21(a)

Each limitation listed is a conclusion that requires a narrative discussion. Without a proper narrative discussion from the ALJ, it is impossible for the Court to determine if the ALJ’s decision on Plaintiff’s RFC limitations is supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ determining residual functional capacity must adequately explain why she rejects limitations in medical opinions she gives great weight.

HULICK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECUIRTY · filed 2019-12-18(a)(1)

Regardless of the ALJ’s comment about the implications of giving opinions “great” versus “controlling” weight, the Court emphasizes that the ALJ was, in any event, required to explain why she rejected the findings that she did in determining Plaintiff’s RFC.

When the connection is not obvious, the ALJ must explain how an RFC limitation addresses the impairment it is meant to address.

(SS) Radovska v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-13(a)(4)

At the least, the ALJ must explain how a functional limitation relates to the impairment it is meant to address, if the relationship is not obvious. For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned concludes that the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence, constituting reversible error.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to explain separately how each moderate mental limitation was incorporated into the RFC when the ALJ considered the medical opinion and the RFC reflects it.

Huizar v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-17

There is no reason why this case needs to be remanded for the sole purpose of having the ALJ expressly state how she incorporated Dr. Cross’ assessed moderate limitations into the RFC.

An ALJ may omit limitations from an RFC assessment when substantial evidence supports the omission and the ALJ adequately explains it.

Block v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(a)(3)

Thus, while Dr. Lips stated that Block has some mental limitations, I find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to omit them from the RFC and that he adequately articulated his reasons for doing so.

An ALJ must consider relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity and adequately explain the basis for the finding, including reasons for discounting a medical opinion.

TILLER v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-03-31(a)(1)

Not only must an ALJ consider all relevant evidence in determining an individual’s RFC, the RFC finding “must ‘be accompanied by a clear and satisfactory explication of the basis on which it rests.’” Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 41 (quoting Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir. 1981)). ... Because the ALJ’s decision does not provide a proper explanation of his reasons for discounting the limitations found by Dr. Bixler, remand is required to allow for more in-depth discussion of Dr. Bixler’s opinion as a whole, as well as more careful consideration of the limitations contained therein.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to account for credited functional limitations in the residual functional capacity assessment or explain their omission.

Miller v. Saul · filed 2020-06-15(a)(1)

The ALJ’s statement that the moderate limitations identified in Dr. Johnson’s opinion were “supported by the record” required the ALJ to provide reasons for disregarding those limitations when determining the RFC.

An ALJ must explain why a medical limitation is omitted from the residual functional capacity assessment when the ALJ gives weight to the opinion containing it.

FELL v. SAUL · filed 2020-07-14(a)

Here, the ALJ failed to articulate why he gave weight to the opinion of Dr. Guie regarding avoidance of concentrated exposure to extreme cold but did not account for them in the RFC. The failure to provide an explanation prohibits me from conducting a proper and meaningful review.

An RFC assessment must explain why the ALJ excludes manipulative limitations supported by the record.

Finney v. Saul · filed 2020-08-07

The ALJ was required to explain his reasons for not including manipulative limitations related to Plaintiff’s right-sided cervical radiculopathy.

An RFC assessment must explain how its restrictions address limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace; limiting a claimant to simple tasks and an unexplained production rate pace does not suffice.

Taylor v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-08-21(a)

The ALJ’s decision does not provide the logical explanation required for the court to conduct meaningful judicial review. As noted in Mascio, a limitation to simple and routine tasks, standing alone, is insufficient to address concentration, persistence, and pace. Use of the phrase “production rate pace” here is no more illuminating on judicial review than “requiring a production rate or demand pace” as used in Thomas.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to explain how an impairment affects functioning and to account for contradictory medical evidence.

Bethea v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-17(a)

Additionally, the ALJ’s decision does not offer any explanation of how the intermittent nature of Plaintiff’s chronic kidney stones would affect Plaintiff’s functioning. While the Commissioner is correct that the ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, it is likewise true that the ALJ cannot consider only the evidence that is helpful to his decision while overlooking contradictory evidence.

An RFC assessment need not include handling and fingering limitations unsupported by the evidence.

Salchert v. Saul · filed 2020-09-21(a)(1)

Because Salchert’s claimed limitations handling and fingering were not supported by the objective medical evidence, Salchert’s reported activities, or the medical opinion evidence in the record, the ALJ reasonably did not include any such limitations in the RFC assessment.

An RFC assessment must explain the evidence supporting each limitation; remand is required when an unexplained off-task percentage prevents meaningful review.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2021-01-12

Without an adequate narrative discussion explaining how the ALJ arrived at her conclusion, the Court is left to speculate what specific evidence the ALJ used to support her conclusion. Moreover, the Court cannot ascertain whether the ALJ used substantial evidence to properly conclude her findings. Since the Court cannot ascertain how the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff would be off task 5% of the time, remand is necessary.

An ALJ must explain the basis for specific restrictions in a claimant’s residual functional capacity so a reviewing court can understand the assessment.

McLendon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-11(b)

The ALJ is not obligated to reconcile explicitly every conflicting shred of medical testimony, but he is required to provide an explanation that allows the Court to understand the rationale behind the restrictions he imposes in his RFC determination.

An ALJ must adequately explain the basis for a residual functional capacity finding, including the treatment of claimed work limitations.

Steadman v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-03-22

In any event, on remand, it will be necessary for the ALJ to adequately explain the basis for his RFC finding.

An RFC that allows alternating between sitting and standing while limiting off-task time must have support from vocational testimony or an explanation of the evidence.

Peissig v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(a)(1)

The ALJ did not explain why the evidence supported a finding that Peissig would not be off task more than ten percent of the workday when transitioning to sitting or standing. On remand the ALJ must either ask the VE whether Peissig’s sit/stand limitations could be accommodated with a 10% off task limitation or otherwise explain any finding he might make that Peissig would not be off task more than ten percent of the workday while transitioning to sitting or standing.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to account for supported limitations, including limitations on an MRFC worksheet the ALJ relies on unless the form’s narrative adequately accounts for them.

Guinta v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-03-24(a)(3)

Circuit precedent also appears to mandate that the limitations noted in the itemized list of functions in the worksheet of an MRFC form on which the ALJ relies be included in the RFC and hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert unless they are “adequately accounted for” in the narrative explanation provided in the form.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider the claimant’s limitations and to explain how record evidence supports the assessed ability to work.

Reese v. Saul · filed 2021-03-26(a)(3)

To find that an ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be shown that the ALJ has “’provide[d] a sufficient rationale to link’” substantial record evidence “’to the legal conclusions reached.’”

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to explain how a claimant’s limitations affect the ability to perform work-related functions throughout a full workday.

Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-29

As the Magistrate Judge properly found, the ALJ failed to analyze how Plaintiff’s alleged limitations affected her ability to perform job-related functions for a full workday.

A residual functional capacity assessment must explain the omission of relevant mental work limitations from medical opinions given great weight so that the assessment permits meaningful review.

Pevaroff v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(a)

The ALJ’s analysis does not address Dr. Fulmer’s opinion that Plaintiff should be limited to a low-stress work environment and frustrates meaningful review. The ALJ’s RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to explain an undefined work pace restriction sufficiently for meaningful judicial review.

Glenn v. Saul · filed 2021-08-12(a)(1)

The failure to explain a non-defined phrase frustrates meaningful review.

An RFC adequately accounts for moderate mental limitations when substantial evidence shows the claimant can perform the work it permits.

Gardner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-19

Thus, the RFC adequately accounts for Plaintiff’s moderate limitations if substantial evidence shows she can perform the RFC despite her limitations. ... Thus, the Court finds that substantial evidence of record supports Plaintiff’s ability to perform work in her RFC despite her moderate limitations.

Moderate mental limitations may be reflected in an RFC limited to simple, routine tasks and occasional interaction with others.

McClure v. Saul · filed 2021-08-30

Regardless, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ did not reject the moderate limitations that Dr. Johnson assessed. The ALJ translated those limitations into an RFC of simple, routine tasks with occasional interaction with coworkers, supervisors, and the public.

An RFC assessment must explain how the evidence supports the claimant’s specific physical limitations.

Burke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21

That lack of explanation supports remand because the ALJ failed to build an appropriate logical bridge between the medical evidence and her RFC.

An RFC assessment must explain a work capacity that conflicts with medical limitations the ALJ found persuasive.

Flanders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-30

On the current record, it seems that the ALJ failed to consider uncontested medical evidence, discounted a medical opinion that the ALJ declared very persuasive, and arrived at an RFC which the persuasive opinion evidence indicated Flanders could not perform. Since the ALJ’s burden of articulation is not met in the instant case, this matter must be remanded for further consideration by the Commissioner.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to explain an RFC limitation clearly enough to permit meaningful review.

McKay v. Saul · filed 2021-12-13

Similarly, the Court finds that the ALJ committed the same reversible error as found in Thomas and the other cases mentioned above, by using the term “production pace.” The use of the term “production pace” is ambiguous, and it is unclear what the ALJ meant by that term. The ALJ failed to provide a definition, explanation, or anything else serving as a “logical bridge” to explain the meaning of her use of the term “production pace.”

An RFC may limit a claimant to superficial interactions while finding that the claimant can respond appropriately within that limit.

Benavidez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-22

It appears clear that the RFC permits “superficial” interaction with others and clarifies that Plaintiff is capable of responding “appropriately” to that level of interaction required by the job.

An RFC assessment must account for functional limitations supported by the record and explain how the evidence supports the limitations assigned.

FOSTER v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-24(a)

The ALJ provided a select summary of the objective medical evidence and then a conclusory statement that the assigned RFC limitations were supported by the evidence. The ALJ however, provided no analysis connecting the evidence to her conclusion. Without that analysis, no logical bridge exists, and this matter must be remanded for further consideration of Jannah's arm and hand limitations.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider whether persistent incontinence calls for workday break limitations and explain the RFC assessment.

Rockey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-17

Without any analysis or discussion of whether Ms. Rockey’s incontinence required limitations in the RFC, the Court cannot determine if the ALJ properly considered her continued incontinence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment that accounts for the claimant’s limitations and is explained well enough to permit review.

Hert v. Saul · filed 2022-09-23(a)

In sum, the ALJ’s explanation did not meet the requirement that the RFC analysis “say enough to enable review of whether the ALJ considered the totality of a claimant’s limitations.”

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ who finds a medical opinion persuasive to explain why a limitation is omitted from the residual functional capacity assessment or include it.

Blankenship v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-26

The ALJ should have either explained his reasons for discounting this limitation or included it in the RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to account for the claimant’s supported functional limitations.

Parker v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-13(a)(1)

As such, the ALJ’s RFC assessment does not account for the full extent of Plaintiff’s functional limitation and therefore cannot support the ALJ’s disability determination.

An RFC must account for relevant evidence; when an ALJ finds a medical opinion persuasive, the ALJ must address material restrictions from that opinion that the RFC omits.

(SS) Stubblefield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-21(a)(3)

Further, the fact that the ALJ stated the opinion was persuasive and mirrored it in some (or even most) respects does not permit the rejection of other restrictions without comment.

An ALJ must explain a specific RFC limitation sufficiently to permit judicial review, including why it accommodates symptoms the ALJ credits.

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

Although it is within the ALJ’s discretion to weigh plaintiff’s testimony and to partially credit her alleged limitations, the ALJ’s failure to provide further explanation for her specific finding precludes judicial review and warrants remand.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC to reflect the most a claimant can do despite limitations, with an explanation of how the evidence supports assessed manipulative abilities.

Liles v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-23(a)

An RFC should reflect the: most that a claimant cain do, despite the claimant's limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The ALJ failed to perform a sufficient function-by-function analysis or demonstrate how the facts cited support his determination that plaintiff could frequently, as opposed to occasionally, engage in these functions.

An RFC assessment must explain how the evidence supports a finding that the claimant will be off task during the workday.

Kelson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-31(a)

The RFC assessment represents the most a claimant can do despite any physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... However, other than a general statement that “the evidence as a whole supports” such limitation, the ALJ did not provide adequate explanation how the evidence supports the finding that Plaintiff would be off task 10 percent of the workday. (Id.) As such, the Court cannot conclude that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. A remand is therefore warranted.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment based on the relevant evidence, with enough explanation to show how the claimant’s limitations were assessed.

Brandt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-26(a)

The RFC assessment is an evaluation of the most a claimant can still do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC is not supported by substantial evidence because the Court is unable to “trace the ALJ’s path of reasoning or discern why the ALJ limited” plaintiff to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks.

An RFC assessment must account for relevant social interaction limitations in medical opinions the ALJ finds persuasive or adequately explain their omission.

Matheny v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-17(a)(1)

In short, remand is warranted in this case because the ALJ found the opinions of Drs. Swain, Kirwin, and Meyer to be persuasive but failed to include the specific social interaction limitations they recommended or to offer an adequate explanation as to why he declined to include these limitations.

Residual functional capacity describes the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; an assessment must explain how the evidence supports its restrictions.

Born v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-01(a)(1)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that this lack of explanation warrants remand. A claimant’s RFC represents “the most [she] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). Social Security Ruling2 (“SSR”) 96-8P details the steps an ALJ must take when assessing a claimant’s RFC. See generally SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996). Specifically, the ruling provides that “[t]he RFC assessment must include a narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports each conclusion, citing specific medical facts (e.g., laboratory findings) and nonmedical evidence (e.g., daily activities, observations).” Id. at *7. Here, the ALJ did not provide a narrative discussion to support the RFC’s production-pace and assembly-line restrictions.

An RFC assessment must explain the omission of a limitation from a medical opinion the ALJ found persuasive well enough to permit meaningful review.

Bostic v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-12

Because this Court is left to guess how the ALJ arrived at the conclusion to exclude a limitation regarding superficial interactions, the ALJ’s decision as written is insufficient to “conduct meaningful judicial review.”

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ to explain the evidence supporting a specific interval for changing physical position in an RFC assessment.

Erwin v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-14(b)

Here, as in Candace W. and Ronald J., the ALJ provided no explanation for determining that Plaintiff must adjust her physical position at specific intervals. ... These gaps in the ALJ’s analysis frustrate “meaningful substantial evidence review” and warrant remand.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider the claimant’s medical condition as a whole and explain the evidence supporting the residual functional capacity finding sufficiently for judicial review.

Robinson v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-02-27(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. ... As such, the undersigned finds that the ALJ provided a sufficient summary of the medical evidence in determining the RFC although he did not cite to all the evidence in the record.

An ALJ need not cite the § 404.1545 residual functional capacity framework multiple times in a decision.

CARTER v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-03-26

Although the ALJ does not again cite 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 404.1520, or SSR 96-8p when making the RFC determination later in the decision, it is not necessary for the ALJ to cite the regulatory framework multiple times.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to mention the RFC regulations a set number of times or in specific parts of the decision.

Fisher v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-03

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s failure to reference 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945,2 and SSR 96–8p more than once in the decision violates , 986 F.3d at 387. (Pl.’s Br. at 6–7.) However, did not create a per se rule requiring reversal whenever an ALJ does not mention the RFC regulations and SSR 96–8p a certain number of times or in specific locations in the ALJ’s decision.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the RFC assessment to address significant functional limitations in the medical evidence and explain how the RFC accounts for them.

Loudermilk v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-28(a)(3)

Because the court cannot trace the ALJ’s reasoning as to how the RFC limitations account for Claimant’s co-dependency on her parents and significant limitation in independently functioning, the matter must be remanded for further consideration.

An RFC assessment need not include a medical source’s statement that work would be difficult when the statement identifies no definite functional limit.

Elick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-04(a)(1)

As a preliminary matter, such statements—that “most likely even a sedentary job would be difficult for [Plaintiff]” and that “physical labor probably would not be doable for him”—are not definitive functional limits that the ALJ was required to include in Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity and explain how the assessed limitations account for the claimant’s physical impairments.

Crase v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-05(a)

The ALJ must base the RFC on all relevant evidence in the record, including the claimant’s descriptions of his limitations and symptoms, objective medical evidence, medical opinions, other medical evidence, evidence from non-medical sources, and prior administrative medical findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)-(5). ... The ALJ’s cursory explanation did not address how the RFC limitations account for Plaintiff’s upper extremity impairments. Because the ALJ’s decision did not build a logical bridge between the evidence and the ALJ’s conclusions about Plaintiff’s upper extremity impairments, reversal is required.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to meaningfully explain the exclusion of a limitation from the residual functional capacity assessment, especially when the ALJ finds the supporting opinion persuasive.

Marcum v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-17(a)

In other words, the explanation provided for not adopting these limitations in an opinion the ALJ otherwise found “mostly persuasive” was not meaningful.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity need not explain line by line how each piece of evidence maps to a limitation if the decision as a whole explains the claimant’s work abilities.

Evans v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-18(a)

An ALJ is not required to annotate their RFC findings, or explain line-by-line how each piece of evidence does (or does not) translate into an RFC limitation. Reading the ALJ’s decision as a whole, and considering the evidence incorporated by citation, the Court finds the decision to be a well-reasoned explanation of Catharine E.’s abilities and limitations relevant to performing work.

An RFC finding lacks substantial evidence when the ALJ does not adequately explain the rejection of a claimant’s need for postural limitations.

Prather v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-31

Without a more robust explanation of the ALJ’s rejection of Plaintiff's need for postural limitations (sit/stand/lie down), the Court determines the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment must explain how the evidence supports the claimant’s capacity for sustained work, but it need not follow a particular format.

ARRIOLA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-01-13(a)

Despite these requirements, “an ALJ does not need to use particular language or adhere to a particular format in conducting her RFC analysis.” ... Rather, the ALJ must merely “‘articulate how the evidence in the record supports the RFC determination, discuss the claimant’s ability to perform sustained work-related activities, and explain the resolution of any inconsistencies in the record.’” ... The ALJ’s RFC determination in this instance plainly satisfies this standard.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must explain why the evidence supports unrestricted supervisor interaction despite a moderate limitation in responding to supervisory criticism.

O'Brien v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-03(a)(1)

Viewing the record as a whole, however, the ALJ failed to explain why plaintiff is capable of unlimited interaction with supervisors despite her moderate limitation in responding appropriately to supervisory criticism.

An ALJ may omit a limitation from a medical opinion found persuasive, but must adequately explain the rationale for the RFC assessment.

Latourette v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-21

While an ALJ is not required to accept every limitation set forth in an opinion that is found to be persuasive, the decision must adequately explain the rationale behind the RFC determination.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider functional limitations in a persuasive medical opinion and explain why any excluded limitation was not adopted.

Robertson v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-13(a)(1)

On remand the ALJ should consider all the functional limitations in Dr. Spencer’s opinion and should either incorporate those limitations into the RFC or explain why an excluded limitation was not adopted.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations, but that standard does not excuse an ALJ from explaining why medical opinion limitations were rejected.

Adams v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-03-28(a)(1)

Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the requirement that the RFC include the most that a claimant can do does not waive the ALJ’s obligation to explain their basis for rejecting limitations found in state agency psychiatrists’ medical opinions.

An ALJ who finds a medical opinion persuasive must incorporate its functional limitations into the residual functional capacity assessment or explain why any are excluded.

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

The record before the Court is inadequate to permit meaningful review of the decision to omit Dr. Moore’s opinion that Plaintiff had a poor ability to attend to and sustain concentration on basic tasks; a poor ability to complete tasks; and a poor capacity to complete work-like tasks in an acceptable time frame. On remand the ALJ should consider all of the functional limitations in Dr. Moore’s opinion and should either incorporate those limitations into the RFC or explain why an excluded limitation was not adopted.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for limitations the ALJ finds persuasive or explain their omission with reasons supported by substantial evidence.

(SS) Milan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-15(a)(1)

The ALJ’s failure to properly incorporate Dr. Bonilla’s persuasive limitation related to concentration, persistence, and pace into the assessed RFC, or otherwise provide reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject the limitation, constitutes error.

An ALJ who adopts a medical opinion as persuasive must include its limitations in the residual functional capacity assessment or explain why they were omitted.

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

The ALJ’s RFC assessment must be based on all the relevant evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... However, when the ALJ finds a physician’s opinion to be “persuasive” and indicates that she has adopted the physician’s opinions, she must incorporate the opined limitations or provide an explanation for declining to do so. ... The ALJ’s failure to provide such an explanation requires remand because it prevents this Court from conducting meaningful review to determine whether substantial evidence supports her decision.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to explain why an RFC omits an exertional limitation from a medical opinion the ALJ found persuasive.

Stump v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-17(a)

But given that the RFC is inconsistent with Dr. Rhode’s opinion, which the ALJ accepted as persuasive, she should have explained how the evidence led her to conclude that no other exertional limitations needed to be included in the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the residual functional capacity assessment to explain how the evidence supports the claimant’s specific work-related limitations.

Calhoun · filed 2026-02-06

Although the ALJ summarized evidence from the record relevant to this conclusion, he did not explain how that evidence supported the specific limitations imposed, or the ultimate conclusion that Plaintiff could perform light work. The decision therefore lacks the required logical bridge between the evidence and the residual functional capacity determination.

An RFC assessment must explain how the evidence about a claimant’s migraines affects the claimant’s ability to work.

Trimyer · filed 2026-03-05(a)(3)

Therefore, it is unclear how the ALJ accounted for Claimant’s migraines in formulating the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity and to explain the omission of limitations in credited medical opinions.

Greene v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-11

An ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant evidence in the case record, including severe and non-severe impairments, medical and non-medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and the claimant’s own descriptions of his limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 404.1545. ... However, the ALJ did not include these moderate limitations in the RFC assessment and did not explain why he omitted the State Agency consultants’ limitations, while assigning great weight to their opinions. ... Therefore, the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge between the evidence and Mr. Greene’s RFC. Accordingly, remand is required.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to explain how the evidence supports the limitations in a claimant’s residual functional capacity assessment.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2021-03-31(a)

The use of the term “production rate pace” is ambiguous, and the Court is unclear as to what the term means. ... The Court cannot ascertain whether the ALJ’s RFC analysis is supported by substantial evidence, and thus, remand is warranted.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment that accounts for the claimant’s work-related limitations and adequately explains the capacity found.

Sharp v. Saul · filed 2022-03-29(a)(1)

It is possible there are several explanations for the ALJ’s conclusion that Claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of medium work with no limitations; however, without any analysis, the Court is unable to conclude that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Remand is warranted for further consideration so that the ALJ can offer an adequate explanation for his RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(b) requires assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity in light of the physical and mental demands of other work.

Davis v. Shalala · filed 1995-03-31(b)

Therefore, in order to evaluate whether a claimant has the capacity to do any other work in the national economy, the claimant’s residual functional capacity or sustained work capability must be assessed in light of the alternative jobs’ physical and mental demands. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the Secretary’s determination that Davis could perform sedentary work prior to June 30, 1991, is not supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity describes the most a claimant can do despite limitations; a job need not require the claimant’s maximum ability.

Matve v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-10(a)(1)

However, an RFC finding represents “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1); 416.945(a)(1). It does not logically follow that a claimant can only perform jobs at their maximum ability level.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a person can still do despite limitations, assessed through physical and mental abilities.

Porter v. Apfel · filed 2001-02-28

RFC is defined as what you can still do despite your limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. In making this determination, one’s physical and mental abilities are assessed. ... Defendant assessed all of the evidence concerning Plaintiffs physical and mental abilities, Plaintiffs subjective allegations and statements, and evaluated inconsistencies in the record. Based on this assessment, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled. This Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do after considering physical and mental limitations that affect work tasks.

Beynum v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-13

RFC is defined in the regulations “as the most an individual can still do after considering the effects of physical and/or mental limitations that affect the ability to perform work-related tasks.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... This Court finds the ALJ properly followed the RFC evaluation outlined in the regulations, and rejects the plaintiffs Ruling 96-8p argument as an attempt to exceed the scope of the Ruling.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity in terms of how physical or mental impairments limit a claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities.

Picard v. McMahon · filed 2007-02-05

The Social Security Administration generally defines one’s residual functional capacity as the extent to which an individual’s physical or mental impairments limit their ability to do work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... In assessing Picard’s residual functional capacity, the hearing officer complied with the mandates of SSR 96-8p and her determination is supported by substantial evidence on record.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a person can still do after accounting for physical or mental limitations that affect work tasks.

Wannamaker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-03-28

The administrative law judge applied the correct law, beginning with the definition of the term "residual functional capacity" as "the most an individual can still do after considering the effects of physical and/or mental limitations that affect the ability to perform work-related tasks." See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a person can do after accounting for physical and mental limitations affecting work tasks.

Monroe v. Barnhart · filed 2007-01-10

Residual functioning capacity is defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 as the most an individual can do after considering the effects of physical and or mental limitations that affect the ability to perform work related tasks.

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

Timmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-02-05(a)

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

An RFC assessment must consider the claimant’s physical and mental abilities, symptoms including pain, and other limitations that could interfere with sustained work activities.

Pardee v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-07(a)

In making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomology, including pain and other limitations which could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. ... Thus, the Court is satisfied that the ALJ employed the correct legal standards and substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s decision with regard to plaintiffs RFC to perform light work.