20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

Section 404.1545(a) no longer defines residual functional capacity as a medical assessment.

Langley v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-12(a)

Under the current regulations, RFC is not a medical assessment. As discussed above, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 was amended in 1991 to delete language defining RFC as a medical assessment.

Section 404.1545(a) calls for an RFC assessment to consider physical and mental abilities, symptoms including pain, and other limitations affecting regular work activity.

Cobbins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-21(a)

When making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ considers a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomatology, including pain and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires consideration of impairments and related symptoms that may limit a claimant’s physical and mental abilities at work when assessing residual functional capacity.

Best-Willie v. Astrue · filed 2013-03-26(a)(1)

This involves consideration of the claimant’s “impairment(s), and any related symptoms . . . [that] may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what [the claimant] can do in a work setting.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider physical and mental abilities and symptoms, including pain, that may limit sustained work.

Karabinas v. Colvin · filed 2014-04-21(a)

In determining an individual’s RFC, the ALJ considers the claimant’s physical abilities; mental abilities; and symptomatolo-gy, including pain and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

An RFC assessment must account for supported limitations in sustained attention and concentration; restrictions to simple tasks and no fast production pace did not account for those limitations here.

Mcewen v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-01

But the ALJ did not adequately address all of these difficulties in the RFC or the hypothetical questions she posed to the VE. Limiting an RFC to “simple, routine tasks that can be learned on a short demonstration;” being unable to “perform fast production pace work;” and being unable to “tolerate work with the public;” does not address Dr. Low’s finding that Plaintiff had moderate difficulties maintaining attention and concentration for extended periods.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to incorporate all limitations supported by the medical record.

Fidler v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-24

An ALJ’s RFC assessment must incorporate all of the plaintiff’s limitations supported by the medical record.

Residual functional capacity is assessed by considering the claimant’s physical, mental, and other abilities affected by impairments.

Raymond v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-09(b)–(d)

The ALJ makes this assessment by considering the claimant’s physical, mental, and other abilities affected by the impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b)–(d). ... We note specifically that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment.

An RFC determination must account for an adaptation limitation that the ALJ finds supported.

Adamson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-07-24(a)(1)

The limitations provided in the RFC do not ... encapsulate the ALJ’s limitation in adaptation; therefore, the RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

A mental RFC must reflect the claimant’s impairments, but earlier functional limitation findings do not dictate its wording.

Russell Hess, III v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2019-07-30(c)

In short, the functional limitation findings do not dictate the terms of the ALJ’s statement of the claimant’s limitation in the final analytical steps. But those findings are relevant to that statement of the limitation, which must be sufficient to reflect all of a claimant’s impairments.

An RFC must account for a physician’s supported sitting and lifting limitations when the ALJ gives that opinion great weight; omitting them without explanation can be harmful error.

Gomoll v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-02

The ALJ’s RFC determination, however, requires up to six hours of sitting, which is more demanding than the hypothetical addressed by the VE and Dr. Ogisu’s opinion that Plaintiff could sit for “less than 6 hours.” Tr. 20, 54, 500; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945 (the RFC is the most a person can do, considering his or her physical or mental impairments). ... As a result, the ALJ’s failure to include the full extent of Dr. Ogisu’s opined limitations, despite assigning great weight to the physician’s opinion, was harmful error.

An RFC limiting a claimant to unskilled work with additional social and pace restrictions can account for moderate mental functioning limitations.

Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-20(a)

Therefore, as outlined herein, the ALJ did not fail to reconcile the RFC with Ms. Reamer’s medical opinion because the RFC, limiting Plaintiff to unskilled work with additional social and pace limitations, properly accounted for “moderate” limitations in Plaintiff’s ability to perform work related mental functions.

An RFC must include all limitations supported by the record, including limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace; a restriction to unskilled work may not adequately account for them.

FRANK v. SAUL · filed 2019-09-30

An ALJ’s RFC (and hypothetical to a vocational expert) must include all of the claimant’s limitations supported by the record, including limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace (“CPP”). ... In this case, the ALJ’s limitation to unskilled work without fast-paced production did not ensure that the VE excluded jobs that Marvin cannot perform.

An RFC assessment must account for moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace by including a corresponding restriction or explaining why none is needed.

Kahler v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-03(a)

Because the ALJ neither included a proper limitation in his RFC assessment nor explained why such a limitation was unnecessary in this case, the Court must remand the case to the SSA for further analysis consistent with Mascio.

An RFC assessment may account for mental impairments by limiting a claimant’s contact with supervisors, coworkers, and the public.

HARDIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-01-31

As a result, this Court finds that ALJ Lee properly analyzed the substantial medical evidence and correctly conducted a Step Four analysis by appropriately considering Plaintiff’s mental limitations. ... ALJ Lee’s RFC assessment for Plaintiff, which “limited Plaintiff to only occasional contact with supervisors and co-workers, and none with the general public,” is consistent with that definition.

An RFC need not include additional restrictions for an impairment when the ALJ has considered its effects and substantial evidence supports the assessment.

James v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(a)(1)

The undersigned finds the ALJ sufficiently considered Plaintiff’s limitations as a result of her cervical spondylosis, and the ALJ’s decision not to include further limitations in the RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 bases residual functional capacity on the claimant’s functional limitations; an asthma diagnosis does not require an RFC limitation when substantial evidence supports none.

Torres-Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(a)(1)

The ALJ’s determination that the medical evidence did not support any limitation in the RFC for Plaintiff’s asthma is supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ must explain the omission of limitations from the residual functional capacity when the ALJ has credited medical opinions identifying those limitations.

Bright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-16

For the following reasons, the undersigned finds that the ALJ’s unexplained election to exclude from the RFC limitations regarding Plaintiff’s upper left extremity is not supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment must account for a claimant’s supported pain, fatigue, and recurring absences.

Fraga-Jimenez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-16(a)

Because the ALJ did not provide clear and convincing reasons for not including Petitioner’s chronic pain symptoms, fatigue, and weekly absences due to migraines in his assessment of Petitioner’s RFC, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s RFC assessment.

An RFC assessment can account for moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace by explaining how long and under what conditions a claimant can stay focused and by including related work restrictions.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-20(a)

Ultimately, the Court finds that here, unlike Mascio, the ALJ adequately accounted for Plaintiff’s moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace by explaining how long and under what conditions Plaintiff could focus and maintain simple tasks, and by including restrictions related to Plaintiff’s ability to change activities or work settings and work in proximity to others without distraction.

An RFC need not include bathroom restrictions when medical evidence supports finding that urinary symptoms do not limit workplace functioning.

McDaniel v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-17(a)(1)

Accordingly, the Court finds that “some medical evidence” supported the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s urinary frequency and incontinence did not affect his ability to function in the workplace or require restrictions to his RFC.

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

Heim v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-27(a)

The ALJ’s failure to address Heim’s abnormal neck examination findings is particularly problematic because the ALJ failed to include any specific limitations in the RFC related to Heim’s neck impairment, despite finding at step two of the sequential analysis that Heim had the severe impairments of cervical disc syndrome, displacement of cervical intervertebral disc without myelopathy, and degeneration of cervical intervertebral status post fusion surgery. (Tr. 284, 286).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence and account for supported work limitations, including the frequency and duration of needed bathroom breaks.

Kelly v. Saul · filed 2020-04-27(a)(3)

An RFC must accommodate all limitations that are supported by the record. Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2015); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (“We will assess your [RFC] based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”). ... The ALJ, however, did not do so, and the resulting RFC did not incorporate any bathroom-related limitations. This was error.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including moderate limitations.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-30

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

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment to include all limitations supported by the medical record.

Patterson v. Saul · filed 2020-05-12

The ALJ also erred by not including in his RFC and hypothetical posed to the VE his stated finding that Plaintiff was limited to “no more than occasional exposure to respiratory irritants.” (R. at 23). “As a general rule, both the hypothetical posed to the VE and the ALJ’s RFC assessment must incorporate all of the claimant’s limitations supported by the medical record.” Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850, 857 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing SSR 96–5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *5; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence and accommodate limitations supported by the record.

Jackson v. Saul · filed 2020-05-12(a)(3)

An RFC must accommodate all limitations that are supported by the record.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC assessment to omit fatigue limitations the ALJ does not find credible.

DOWNING v. SAUL · filed 2020-05-14

The ALJ did not err in assessing an RFC that included only the limitations that he found credible concerning Karen D.'s fatigue.

An RFC assessment must account for functional limitations supported by the evidence, including limitations in range of motion.

Ballard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15

The ALJ did not accommodate Ms. Ballard’s limited range of motion with all extremities, which she testified to and is supported by the medical evidence, in the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) does not require additional residual functional capacity restrictions when the medical findings do not support them.

Risner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-15(a)

Likewise, with respect to the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s obesity in light of the additional severe impairments of degenerative disc disease and joint disease of the knees, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that, although the ALJ could have been more specific, the ALJ clearly explained that Plaintiff’s new arthritic conditions were supported by minimal medical findings and did not warrant additional restrictions in Plaintiff’s RFC assessment.

An RFC can account for intermittent vertigo through restrictions on climbing and exposure to machinery and heights when the record supports no greater limitation.

Sharp v. Saul · filed 2020-09-16(a)(1)

In any event, the RFC did account for the possibility of vertigo symptoms—severe or not—in that Sharp was limited to “never climb[ing] ladders, ropes, or scaffolds” and “avoid[ing] operational control of moving machinery, unprotected heights, and exposure to hazardous machinery.” Nothing in the record suggests Sharp’s vertigo would present any greater challenge than this—noting particularly its intermittent manifestation, positive improvement with therapy, and medication efficacy.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s physical and mental abilities when assessing residual functional capacity.

Magoon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-15(c)

The ALJ considered the record evidence and the available medical opinions in determining Plaintiff's ability to perform the physical and mental demands of work activity, and sufficiently described her findings. See id. at 14-18; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c). Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ's RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s physical and mental abilities when determining residual functional capacity.

Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-01(b), (c)

The ALJ makes this determination by considering the claimant’s ability to lift weight, sit, stand, push, pull, walk, etc., as well as the claimant’s mental abilities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), (c).

An RFC assessment must account for supported mental limitations and connect the evidence to the limitations selected.

Sibert v. Saul · filed 2021-03-31

Here, the ALJ failed to point to sufficient evidence supporting her lay translation of Jeremy’s medical records into the selected RFC, particularly with respect to Jeremy’s PTSD triggers, as discussed above.

An RFC includes conditions necessary for a claimant to work, but need not include conditions that would merely give the claimant the best chance of success.

Peacock v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(a)

In other words, the RFC need only include those necessary conditions for Plaintiff to work—not Plaintiff’s ideal or optimal work environment that would give him the greatest chance for success.

An RFC assessment must include credibly established limitations, but need not include limitations the ALJ permissibly discounted.

Hollinger v. Saul · filed 2022-03-07

I am not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that remand is required so that the discounted limitations set forth in the treating sources’ opinion may be included in the ALJ’s RFC assessment. For the reasons explained in Sections IV. B. & C. of this opinion, I find that those limitations were permissibly discounted by the ALJ.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s remaining work abilities and articulate a handling limitation when the evidence indicates one.

Smoke v. Saul · filed 2022-03-09(a)(1)

In other words, the manner in which the ALJ performed the foregoing analysis clearly suggests that the ALJ believed Smoke has some limitation in his ability to handle objects (for instance), but not the degree of limitation found by Dr. Yarbrough (see Doc. 15, PageID. 454 (Yarbrough limited Plaintiff to only “occasionally” handling, fingering, feeling, etc.)); therefore, the ALJ was duty bound to fully articulate the degree of limitation of handling objects in his RFC determination.

An RFC must account for credited limitations on interaction with co-workers and supervisors; a limit on public contact alone does not cover them.

(SS) Mendoza v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-10

Here, despite giving great weight to a medical opinion recognizing moderate limitations on Plaintiff’s ability to interact with the public, co-workers, and supervisors, the ALJ’s RFC improperly excluded limitations on interactions with co-workers and supervisors.

An RFC assessment accounts for a medical opinion when it includes the opinion’s exertional limits and adds restrictions supported by the full record.

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

Therefore, the ALJ’s RFC accounted for Dr. Powell’s opinion to restrict Plaintiff to light exertional work and additionally imposed more restrictions after viewing the totality of the evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) permits an RFC limited to simple, unskilled work to account for concentration, persistence, and pace limitations when the evidence shows the claimant can perform that work despite those limitations.

Roney v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(a)

Thus, the ALJ adequately accounted for Roney’s limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace by finding that the evidence demonstrated he could perform simple, unskilled work in spite of those limitations.

An RFC assessment must address a claimant’s need for frequent restroom use; limits on sitting, standing, and walking do not themselves account for that need.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(a)(1)

Moreover, the ALJ appeared to accept Long’s statements about diarrhea and need to frequently use the restroom caused by thrice daily doses of lactulose as well as Dr. Naran’s related opinion, but the ALJ confusingly found the RFC addressed the need to frequently use the restroom merely by including a sitting, standing, and walking limitation.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for a claimant’s supported mental limitations; a restriction to unskilled work alone may not capture a moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace.

Timmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-04(a)

The Court finds that upon the record in this case, the limitation to “unskilled work,” without more, was insufficient to incorporate the Petitioner’s moderate limitation on concentration, persistence, or pace.

An RFC assessment accounts for credible limitations related to medically determinable impairments.

Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-26(a)(2)

Plaintiff has thus not shown the ALJ erred in noting “there is no impairment that supports” the handling limitation, and accordingly the ALJ’s RFC assessment accounts for the credible limitations related to her medically determinable impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

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

(SS) Nethercutt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-16(a)

In determining residual functional capacity, the ALJ must assess what the plaintiff can still do in light of both physical and mental limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a) (2003); see also Valencia v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (residual functional capacity reflects current “physical and mental capabilities”).

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

(SS) Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-04(a)

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

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all medical evidence and reflect the claimant’s physical, mental, and environmental restrictions.

Cooper-Neal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-28(a)(1), (a)(3)

The RFC must take into account all of the medical evidence in the record, and must reflect all of the claimant’s physical, mental, and environmental restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) and (3).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for a supported mental limitation or explain why it does not affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Bruce v. Social Security · filed 2024-01-09

In sum, the court finds the ALJ erred in failing to account for the moderate limitation in the ability to adapt or manage oneself in the RFC or hypothetical to the ALJ or explain why this limitation did not affect Plaintiff’s ability to perform his PRW. This matter will be remanded for the ALJ to include that limitation in the RFC and hypothetical to the VE, and determine whether, in light of this additional limitation, the Plaintiff is disabled.

Section 404.1545(a)(4) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s ability to meet the physical and other requirements of work and to address contested functional limitations.

Hatley v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-16(a)(4)

In assessing an individual’s RFC, the ALJ considers an individual’s ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(4). ... Thus, this is a contested function that warrants express discussion from the ALJ.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess how a claimant’s conditions affect her ability to function.

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

However, the ALJ is not tasked with outlining conditions but in determining how those conditions affect function.

An RFC finding must include the limiting effects of a claimant’s established impairments.

Hicks v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-19(e)

If the ALJ accepts evidence establishing the existence of a medical impairment and its associated limitations, then the ALJ is required to include appropriate limitations in her RFC finding. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e) and Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7 (S.S.A. 1996) (stating that an RFC finding must include all the limiting effects of a claimant’s impairments).

An RFC assessment must account for a medically required cane and supported walking and standing limitations, or explain why it omits them.

Morrison v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-30(a)(1)

In short, both the subjective and objective medical evidence indicate that Morrison’s cane is medically required. The ALJ thus erred by failing to include this limitation in the RFC or explain “how the evidence in file was considered in the assessment.”

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence and account for a claimant’s limitations, including those that are not severe.

Staniszewski v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-21(a)(1)

An RFC measures the tasks a person can perform given her limitations based on “all the relevant evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); see also Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 362 (7th Cir. 2013). The ALJ “must incorporate a claimant’s limitations,” including those that are not severe, when developing the RFC.

Section 404.1545 does not require an RFC to include limitations based on evidence that has been properly discounted.

(SS) Desylva v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-07(a)(1)

Further, while Plaintiff argues that the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ is not required to include limitations based on evidence that has been properly discounted.

An RFC may describe a claimant’s visual limitations by how often she can perform tasks requiring near visual acuity.

King v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-08

Therefore, using the word “frequent” to describe Ms. King’s visual limitations is appropriate and is not a basis for remand.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess both physical and mental abilities when determining residual functional capacity.

Brooks v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-10(b)–(c)

The ALJ must perform a functional analysis for both physical and mental abilities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b)–(c) (2021).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC to account for supported functional limitations in medical opinions the ALJ finds persuasive.

Denton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-12

The Court agrees that the ALJ erred when formulating the RFC by failing to account for limitations established by the state agency psychological consultants whom the ALJ credited and found persuasive.

An RFC assessment requires remand when the ALJ gives no explanation for omitting a potentially consequential functional limitation from an opinion the ALJ found persuasive.

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

However, the absence of any explanation detailing why the ALJ disregarded Dr. Spencer’s limitation that Plaintiff has a moderate impairment to consistently stay on task, while including all the other limitations in Dr. Spencer’s opinion, requires remand.

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

(SS) Green v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-05(a)

In determining residual functional capacity, the ALJ must assess what the plaintiff can still do in light of both physical and mental limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a) (2003); see also Valencia v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (residual functional capacity reflects current “physical and mental capabilities”).

An RFC assessment must explain how the evidence supports specific physical limits, including limits on standing, walking, and sitting.

Gross · filed 2026-03-10(b)

The ALJ did not explain how the evidence in the record, either a specific piece of evidence or reviewed as a whole, supported the exact hours exceptions he included in the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment of what a claimant can do at work despite limitations imposed by all medically determinable impairments.

Potter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19

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. ... Based on this record, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s RFC accounted for plaintiff’s mental impairments.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to account for medically determinable impairments, including moderate limitations in adaptive functioning, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Spencer v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-10(a)(1)-(2)

For all of these reasons, the court concludes that the ALJ erred in failing to account for Mr. Spencer’s adaptive-functioning limitation and that such error was not harmless.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity based on supported functional limitations; alleged dizziness need not add restrictions when the claimant shows no resulting limitations.

Blakeley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-21(a)(2)

Plaintiff has not shown dizziness has caused any additional limitations that were not accounted for in the ALJ’s RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places the burden on claimants to provide evidence of the limitations used to assess residual functional capacity.

Shafer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-26(a)(3)

Plaintiff has the burden to provide evidence to establish his RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); SSR 96-8p.

Section 404.1545 places the burden on the claimant to prove that she cannot perform the assessed residual functional capacity.

Miller v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-25

Plaintiff bears the burden of proving she cannot perform the assessed RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545; 416.945. She is unable to do that here, and the assessed RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the Commissioner responsible for developing the claimant’s complete medical history; failing to investigate evidence of a possible impairment can be prejudicial.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2019-08-30(a)(3)

Ultimately, the claimant is responsible for providing evidence relating to his RFC and the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... The Court holds that the ALJ’s decision not to develop the record on this point was prejudicial.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) does not require a consultative examination when the existing record supports an informed RFC determination.

Hart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-28(a)(3)

As long as there is substantial evidence to support the RFC, it is not for the Court upon judicial review to direct the ALJ to gather more information or require additional evaluation or testing.

Section 404.1545 places on the claimant the burden of proving that she cannot perform the assessed residual functional capacity.

Intravia v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-05

Plaintiff bears the burden of proving she cannot perform the assessed RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. She has not done so here.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places on the claimant the burden of providing evidence showing how much her impairments limit her residual functional capacity.

Dowling v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-15(a)(3)

Dowling bears the burden of providing evidence establishing the degree to which her impairments limit her RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places responsibility for producing evidence of residual functional capacity on the claimant while requiring the Commissioner to develop the medical record fully and fairly.

RICKERTSEN v. Barnhart · filed 2005-08-12(a)(3)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) states that the responsibility of producing evidence of residual functional capacity rests with the claimant. ... Thus, while the claimant bears the burden of proving disability, the Commissioner bears the burden of fully and fairly developing the record.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence for the residual functional capacity finding, but that responsibility does not excuse the ALJ from developing the record.

Widmark v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-07-26(a)(3)

Of course, Widmark is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence to be used in making the RFC finding. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(c); 404.1545(a)(3). ... Accordingly, it was unreasonable for the ALJ to infer that Widmark's thumb did not limit his ability to do fine manipulation from Widmark's failure to provide information the relevance of which the ALJ was in a better position to know and the existence of which he was in part responsible for verifying.

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

Barton v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-10(a)

The ALJ must assess a claimant's RFC based upon all relevant, credible evidence in the record, including medical records, the observations of treating physicians and others, and the claimant's own description of his symptoms and limitations. Anderson v. Shalala, 51 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir.1995); Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 793 (8th Cir.2005); 20, C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... In the case at bar, the ALJ's RFC assessment was not properly informed, nor was it supported by medical evidence from a medical professional.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places on the claimant the burden of providing evidence showing how much her impairments limit her residual functional capacity.

Pacensa v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-26(a)(3)

A plaintiff bears the burden of providing evidence establishing the degree to which her impairments limit her residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider physical and mental abilities, symptoms, and other limitations affecting sustained work activity.

Ocasio v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-15(a)

When making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ considers a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomatology, including pain and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). An RFC finding will be upheld when there is substantial evidence in the record to support each requirement listed in the regulations.

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

Agan v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-07(a)(3)

The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

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

Comstock v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-14(a)(3)

The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence for an RFC finding and the Commissioner responsible for developing the claimant’s complete medical history.

Lopez v. Colvin · filed 2013-08-13(a)(3)

The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

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

Henn v. Colvin · filed 2013-09-30(a)(3)

The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

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

Loftis v. Colvin · filed 2013-10-16(a)(3)

The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence for an RFC finding and the Commissioner responsible for developing the claimant’s complete medical history.

Ditsworth v. Colvin · filed 2013-11-12(a)(3)

The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.”

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

Vantuyl v. Colvin · filed 2013-11-20(a)(3)

The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

Residual functional capacity describes what a claimant can do despite limitations; the ALJ determines it without applying the treating physician rule to a physician’s RFC determination.

Bates v. Colvin · filed 2013-12-02(a)(1)

We note here that the "treating physician rule” does not apply to RFC determinations by physicians; the extent of what a claimant can do despite her limitations is committed to the exclusive discretion of the ALJ.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to develop a complete medical history and make every reasonable effort to obtain medical reports when assessing residual functional capacity.

Hooper v. Colvin · filed 2016-08-05(a)(3)

The Court cannot conclude that the ALJ evaluated Hooper’s RFC at step four with a complete record. ... It is an ALJ’s responsibility to “develop [the claimant’s] complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination if necessary, and mak[e] every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [her] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(d-f)).

An RFC assessment need not include a limitation attributed to an impairment when the record lacks acceptable evidence of a resulting functional limitation.

Sinbaldi v. SSA · filed 2017-06-12

The record, however, includes no acceptable evidence on which the ALJ could have based any such limitation. ... In short, the ALJ did not err by declining to impose limitations resulting from claimant’s osteoporosis.

An RFC assessment must explain how substantial record evidence supports its material components, including the claimant’s ability to stand and walk.

Vergos v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-10

In this case, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC assessment cannot be found to be supported by substantial evidence inasmuch as the ALJ does not explain, when summarizing the evidence of record and articulating the required linkage, how the medical evidence (or other evidence of record) related to Plaintiff’s admittedly severe impairment of degenerative disc disease supports each component of her RFC assessment.

An RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence when the ALJ links it to specific record evidence about the claimant’s ability to meet work requirements.

King v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-19

In this case, the Court finds that the ALJ linked her RFC assessment—that is, sedentary work with some mental limitations—to specific evidence in the record bearing upon King’s ability to perform the physical, mental, sensory and other requirements of work.

Section 404.1545(a) leaves assessment of a claimant’s ability to work to the ALJ, so a physician’s conclusion that the claimant cannot work receives no controlling weight or special significance.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-04(a)

Here, Dr. Hunt did not provide any specific functional limitations but did opine that Williams was incapable of working (Tr. 454, 455, 456). This is a legal conclusion that is reserved for the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 404.1546, 416.945(a), 416.946. It is not entitled to any controlling weight or given special significance.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including a claimant’s description of symptom-related limitations.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2019-07-24(a)(3)

The RFC is based on all relevant medical and other evidence in the record and may include a claimant’s own description of limitations arising from alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see also S.S.R. 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5. ... Therefore, the ALJ did not err in his consideration of the effect of Claimant’s frequent bathroom usage in the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence of residual functional capacity and the Commissioner responsible for developing the record.

Murphy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-01(a)(3)

The claimant is responsible for providing the evidence the Commissioner will use to determine his RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the record.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to develop the record fully and fairly when assessing residual functional capacity; the ALJ may rely on a claimant’s representations about additional records.

Hahn Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-24(a)(3)

ALJs have an independent duty to fully and fairly develop the record and assure the claimant’s interests are considered. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(b); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). ... Because the ALJ thoroughly inquired into the completeness of the medical record and was entitled to rely on Plaintiff’s representations, and also thoroughly inquired into Plaintiff’s physical and mental symptoms and limitations, the ALJ fulfilled his duty to fully and fairly develop the record.

An RFC limitation must have support in the record, even if it does not precisely match a medical opinion.

Cunningham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-03(a)

Although an ALJ may assess RFC limitations that do not precisely align with any medical opinion, the limitations must have some support in the record.

An RFC assessment must rest on medical and other record evidence, with a reasoned explanation connecting that evidence to the claimant’s work-related limitations.

Oury v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-06(a)(3)

A claimant’s RFC must be based upon the medical evidence in the record and other evidence, such as testimony by the claimant or her friends and family. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... The logical bridge from the evidence to this conclusion has not been built, as many of the factors both he and the State agency consultants cited were not related to a limitation in this area of functioning or were not fully developed.

An ALJ must base the residual functional capacity assessment on all relevant evidence of the claimant’s ability to work despite impairments.

WILLIAMS v. SAUL · filed 2019-09-09(a)

An ALJ’s RFC assessment must be based upon all relevant evidence of a claimant’s ability to do work despite her impairments. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238; Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)).

An RFC determination can be supported by other medical evidence even when opinion evidence receives limited weight.

Utley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-10

The limitation of opinion evidence does not undermine an ALJ’s RFC determination where other medical evidence in the record supports the finding.

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

Massa v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-11

In sum, because the ALJ’s RFC assessment was not informed and supported by “some medical evidence” in the record that addressed Plaintiff's physical ability to function in the workplace, this case must be reversed and remanded for further consideration.

An RFC assessment must consider relevant medical opinions, including any environmental limitations they identify.

Barth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-11(a)

Because the ALJ’s decision lacks any mention of Dr. Kwock’s opinion and that opinion includes environmental limitations3 which were not discussed or included in the RFC determination, the Court finds this opinion was not properly considered by the ALJ.

An ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination must have support from medical evidence, except in cases involving relatively minor physical impairments.

Santangelo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16

The Court has read § 404.1545 and does not find support for the Commissioner’s assertion. Instead, the Court finds the district court’s opinion in Hilsdorf persuasive. ... Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination for Plaintiff’s physical and mental capabilities must have support from medical evidence, except in cases involving relatively minor physical impairments.

An RFC assessment requires further record development when the available medical assessments omit a significant part of the relevant period and the remaining evidence does not support the functional findings.

Newton v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-26

As such, the ALJ shall develop the record by requesting a medical source statement or other assessment of functional limitations from a treating or consulting physician, and shall then reevaluate the RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations; additional limitations must have evidentiary support.

Sohn v. Saul · filed 2019-09-30(a)

The RFC is defined as what the claimant can do despite his or her limitations, and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... Sohn has not met her burden to support a more restrictive RFC determination that would include limitations for migraine headaches or any mental impairment.

The claimant is responsible for providing the evidence used to determine residual functional capacity.

Deuel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-01(a)(3)

Moreover, Plaintiff fails to point to evidence in the record that demonstrates that a more restrictive RFC is appropriate. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (the claimant is responsible for providing the evidence used in the residual functional capacity determination); see also Dumas, 712 F.2d at 1553.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence and explain the residual functional capacity assessment sufficiently for meaningful review.

Moreno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-10(a)

An ALJ must consider all of the evidence and must explain his decision such that it may be meaningfully reviewed.

When the record lacks a medical opinion about a claimant’s functional limitations, the ALJ generally must develop the record before assessing residual functional capacity.

Lovejoy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-15

And in the absence of a medical opinion, the ALJ necessarily relied only on his own lay judgment to formulate Lovejoy’s RFC. ... Here, the ALJ’s failure to obtain a medical opinion regarding Lovejoy’s functional capacity constituted just such an error.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places on the claimant the burden of providing evidence showing how much her impairments limit her ability to work.

Siler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-11(a)(3)

Plaintiff bore the burden of providing evidence establishing the degree to which her impairments limit her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3).

An RFC assessment must have medical evidence supporting the claimant’s ability to meet its stated work requirements.

Govero v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-12

On the facts of this case, however, the Court cannot say that the RFC is supported by “some medical evidence,” nor can the Court determine whether the RFC is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC determination supported by other medical evidence even when the ALJ gives opinion evidence limited weight.

Baechle v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-16

The limitation of opinion evidence does not undermine an ALJ’s RFC determination where other medical evidence in the record supports the finding.

The ALJ makes the ultimate residual functional capacity determination and may discount a physician’s assessment with an adequate explanation.

Beagle v. SSA · filed 2020-03-24(e)

Finally, the ALJ provided a sound explanation for discounting Dr. Noelker’s RFC assessment. Importantly, the ultimate determination regarding RFC is reserved for the ALJ.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires a claimant to provide evidence showing how impairments limit residual functional capacity.

Hudson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(a)(3)

Hudson bears the burden of providing evidence that establishes the degree to which his impairments limit his RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 places on the claimant the burden of proving she cannot perform the assessed residual functional capacity.

Murillo v. Saul · filed 2020-03-30

Plaintiff bears the burden of proving she cannot perform the assessed RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) permits an RFC assessment to include greater limitations than a medical consultant proposed when other record evidence supports them.

EASTMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-23(a)

In this regard, the ALJ gave Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and restricted Plaintiff’s RFC based on the other evidence of record like Plaintiff’s testimony and activities of daily living. (ECF No. 5-2, pp. 19-25). Providing Plaintiff with additional limiting abilities in the RFC only serves Plaintiff’s advantage. Thus, I find remand is not warranted on this basis.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places the burden on the claimant to provide sufficient evidence for a residual functional capacity finding.

Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-12(a)(3)

The claimant bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence to make a RFC finding. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(A)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to determine specific RFC limitations from medical evidence without requiring a physician to state each exact limitation.

Maroney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-06

To require more detail about the exact limitations would be to ask the physicians to establish the RFC, which is not their job.

Section 404.1545 makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence used to assess residual functional capacity.

Beach v. Saul · filed 2020-07-28(a)(3)

The Code of Federal Regulations specifically states Plaintiff is responsible for providing evidence for the ALJ to use in making an RFC finding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) generally makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence of how impairments affect residual functional capacity.

Vickers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(a)(3)

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3) (“In general, you are responsible for providing the evidence we will use to make a finding about your residual functional capacity.”)). Here, although the record contains a diagnosis of pancreas divisum, ulcerative colitis, and hydrocele, Vickers points to no evidence, besides his own statements and assertions (some of which he concedes are not in the record), about the functional impact of his impairments.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC finding to reflect the claimant’s functional limitations in light of the evidence as a whole.

Weimer v. Saul · filed 2020-09-10

ALJs are tasked with evaluating the evidence taken as a whole, resolving any inconsistencies, and formulating a RFC finding that reflects a claimant’s functional limitations, as consistent with the evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 404.1546.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence of an impairment and its severity, while the ALJ resolves evidentiary conflicts and determines residual functional capacity.

Algarin-Santos v. Social Security · filed 2020-09-26(a)(3)

A claimant is responsible for providing the evidence of an impairment and its severity; the ALJ is responsible for resolving any evidentiary conflicts and determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see also Tremblay v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 676 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 1982) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971)).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places responsibility for resolving evidentiary conflicts and determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity on the ALJ.

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a)(3)

While a claimant is responsible for providing the evidence of an impairment and its severity, the ALJ is responsible for resolving any evidentiary conflicts and determining the claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places responsibility for providing evidence of an impairment and its severity on the claimant, while the ALJ resolves evidentiary conflicts and determines RFC.

Velez v. Commisioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-20(a)(3)

A claimant is responsible for providing the evidence of an impairment and its severity; the ALJ is responsible for resolving any evidentiary conflicts and determining the claimant’s RFC.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider the entire record, including nonsevere impairments and limitations.

Hilliard v. Saul · filed 2021-01-11(a)

In determining RFC specifically, an ALJ must consider the entire record, opinion evidence, impairments that are not severe, and any limitations the ALJ finds. ... The ALJ also erred by failing to explain why Dr. Kafaji’s notes or Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the frequency of Plaintiff’s migraines had no effect on the RFC determination.

An ALJ assessing mental residual functional capacity must ground the finding in medical opinion evidence when the claimant has severe mental impairments.

Gullo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-13

The ALJ needed to tether his RFC to a medical opinion.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to include upper extremity limitations in the residual functional capacity finding when no medical opinion supports them.

Frankovis-Miesfeld v. Saul · filed 2021-01-26

Absent a medical opinion indicating that Frankovis-Miesfeld was limited in her use of her arms, fingers, or hands, the ALJ did not err.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to include off-task time or unscheduled breaks in an RFC when the record does not establish those limitations.

Gornal v. Saul · filed 2021-01-26

Based on the record in this case, I find that the ALJ did not err by failing to include restrictions that Plaintiff would be “off task” 15% to 20% of the workday or would need to take four or five unscheduled breaks throughout the workday in the RFC, and did not err by choosing to rely on the second hypothetical (instead of the third, which included these limitations).

An RFC assessment must consider the whole record, but an ALJ cannot infer the work effects of significant impairments from treatment notes without a useful medical assessment of those limitations.

Breashears v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-10(a)(1)

While it is true that the ALJ must consider the record evidence as a whole in determining RFC, that does not permit an ALJ to make medical determinations from treatment notes concerning the effect of a claimant’s limitations on his or her ability to work, which is what the ALJ did here after rejecting the opinion evidence.

Section 404.1545 treats residual functional capacity as an administrative finding; the ALJ need not adopt any medical opinion in full.

Moua v. Saul · filed 2021-02-05

He was not required to reiterate the conclusions of any single medical opinion or adopt any opinion in full. Rather, the residual functional capacity determination is an administrative, not a medical, finding. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) generally makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence used to determine residual functional capacity.

MORALES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-02(a)(3)

Similar to step three analysis discussed above, it is Plaintiff who retains the burden to show why the RFC was improper. Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (“In general, you [the plaintiff] are responsible for providing the evidence we will use to make a finding about your residual functional capacity.”). Plaintiff has not met her burden.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence of an impairment and its severity, while the ALJ resolves evidentiary conflicts and determines residual functional capacity.

Roche v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-11(a)(3)

However, the claimant is responsible for providing the evidence of an impairment and its severity; and the ALJ is responsible for resolving any evidentiary conflicts and determining the claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC finding to consider all relevant evidence, including medical records, others’ observations, and the claimant’s description of limitations.

Winship v. Saul · filed 2021-03-19

The ALJ’s RFC finding is to be based on all of the relevant evidence including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and Plaintiff’s own description of his limitations.

Section 404.1545(a) treats residual functional capacity as an administrative finding of a claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities.

Burkhart v. SSA · filed 2021-03-18(a)

RFC is an administrative finding of an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities, and establishing the claimant’s RFC is a decision reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); SSR 96-5p: Titles II and XVI.

The claimant must provide evidence of an impairment and its severity, while the ALJ resolves evidentiary conflicts and determines residual functional capacity.

Vazquez-Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-22(a)(3)

However, the claimant is responsible for providing the evidence of an impairment and its severity; and the ALJ is responsible for resolving any evidentiary conflicts and determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see also Tremblay v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 676 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 1982) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971)).

The claimant provides evidence of an impairment and its severity, while the ALJ resolves evidentiary conflicts and determines residual functional capacity.

Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-26(a)(3)

However, the claimant is responsible for providing the evidence of an impairment and its severity; and the ALJ is responsible for resolving any evidentiary conflicts and determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see also Tremblay v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 676 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 1982) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971)).

Section 404.1545 places responsibility for formulating residual functional capacity on the ALJ; a lack of medical opinion evidence alone is not fatal, but the assessment must be supported by record evidence.

Thelen v. Saul · filed 2021-03-22

Again, it is the ALJ’s duty to formulate the RFC, see Schmidt, 496 F.3d at 845; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 404.1546, so the lack of medical opinion evidence, alone, is not fatal. The problem here is that the ALJ failed to support her mental RFC conclusions with evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence of an impairment and its severity, while the ALJ resolves evidentiary conflicts and determines residual functional capacity.

Cintron-Sostre v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-25(a)(3)

While a claimant is responsible for providing the evidence of an impairment and its severity, the ALJ is responsible for resolving any evidentiary conflicts and determining the claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) concerns what a claimant can do despite limitations; an RFC allowing six hours of sitting and two hours of standing or walking may be upheld when supported by substantial evidence.

Markus v. Saul · filed 2021-03-31(a)

Based on a careful review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determination that Markus can perform sedentary work, including that she can sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday and stand or walk for 2 hours in an 8-hour workday, is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) generally makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence used to determine residual functional capacity.

Martin v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-31(a)(3)

Plaintiff fails to point to any evidence to support her subjective claims, and it is Plaintiff’s burden to provide evidence in support of the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places responsibility for providing evidence of an impairment and its severity on the claimant, while the ALJ resolves evidentiary conflicts and determines residual functional capacity.

Ramos-Oquendo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(a)(3)

While a claimant is responsible for providing the evidence of an impairment and its severity, the ALJ is responsible for resolving any evidentiary conflicts and determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see also Tremblay v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 676 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 1982).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence used to assess residual functional capacity.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-06(a)(3)

It is plaintiff’s burden to produce evidence and prove both his RFC and his disability.

An RFC determination must be supported by medical evidence addressing the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace; an unsupported determination requires further development of the record.

Martinez v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-06-02(a)(3)

The ALJ’s RFC determination must be supported by medical evidence that addresses Plaintiff’s ability to function in the workplace. ... The Court finds the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence and requires remand to further develop the record and further consider Plaintiff’s maximum RFC.

An ALJ may base an RFC off-task limitation on record evidence without a medical opinion specifying that limitation.

Howbert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-17(a)

So while there may have been no specific medical opinion upon which the ALJ relied in determining Plaintiff’s off-task limitation, she based the limitation off the record evidence and did not err in doing so.

Section 404.1545 places responsibility for assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the Commissioner.

Khuen v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-06(a)(3)

It is the Commissioner’s responsibility (here the ALJ’s) to assess RFC and to compare a claimant’s RFC with the mental demands of a job, and the Court may not substitute its judgment for the Commissioner’s. So, remand would be needed for a proper evaluation, unless that ALJ’s alternative findings provide a proper basis to support a finding of not disabled.

Section 404.1545 requires supporting medical evidence of a claimant’s ability to function at work when the record does not otherwise establish the functional limits used in the RFC assessment.

Hodde v. Saul · filed 2021-07-07

Under the circumstances here, when evaluating Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ “was required to consider at least some supporting evidence from a professional.”

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

Collazo-Huertas v. Commisioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-22(a)(3)

A claimant is responsible for providing the evidence of an impairment and its severity; the ALJ is responsible for resolving any evidentiary conflicts and determining the claimant’s RFC.

A claimant must prove her residual functional capacity, including any medically necessary mental limitations.

Holaday v. Saul · filed 2021-07-12(a)(3)

But Plaintiff had the duty to prove her residual functional capacity, and she has not shown that this record demonstrates warranted medically necessary mental limitations.

Section 404.1545 leaves the RFC assessment to the ALJ, who may consider medical opinions about a claimant’s ability to work.

Walke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-14(e)

While an ALJ may adopt medical opinions concerning a claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities, the RFC assessment is an issue reserved for the ALJ.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for the claimant’s limitations and the evidence bearing on her ability to work.

Carroll v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-14(a)(1)

Given the foregoing, the court finds the ALJ failed to comply with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, SSR 96-8p, and Fourth Circuit precedent in assessing Plaintiffs RFC.

The claimant provides evidence of an impairment and its severity; the ALJ resolves evidentiary conflicts and determines residual functional capacity.

Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-23(a)(3)

A claimant is responsible for providing the evidence of an impairment and its severity; the ALJ is responsible for resolving any evidentiary conflicts and determining the claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) bases the RFC assessment on all relevant medical and other evidence; it does not require a medical opinion specifically stating the claimant’s RFC.

Manuel v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-28(a)(3)

Therefore, Manuel is wrong that the RFC was required to be supported by a medical opinion.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence in the claimant’s case record.

Simonsen v. Saul · filed 2021-12-17(a)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). The assessment of a claimant’s RFC must be “based on all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Id.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires claimants to provide evidence showing how their impairments limit their residual functional capacity.

Osborne v. Saul · filed 2021-12-13(a)(3)

An ALJ must assess a claimant’s work-related abilities (i.e., a claimant’s residual functional capacity) on a “function-by-function” basis, but the claimant bears the burden of providing evidence establishing the degree to which his impairments limit his residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512, 404.1545(a)(3); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184.

Section 404.1545 allows an RFC assessment supported by a sufficient discussion of the claimant’s medical record.

COLEMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-06

Here, in assessing Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ provided a sufficient narrative discussion of Plaintiff’s entire medical record during the alleged period of disability.

An RFC finding may be supported by the record even when the ALJ does not address a temporary lifting restriction in a medical opinion.

Winbush v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-20(a)

Even so, the Court finds no additional evidence is necessary to support the ALJ’s decision as to the RFC, and that a remand for further explanations of the ALJ’s reasoning is not necessary.

Section 404.1545 assigns the ALJ responsibility for determining residual functional capacity from the evidence as a whole; a separate medical expert opinion on how interpreted MRI findings affect functioning is not required.

Hodges v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-17(a)(1), (3)

Moreover, the ALJ did not err by using the physical therapist’s summary of Dr. Smullen’s findings (which Plaintiff does not claim was inaccurate) to assess Plaintiff’s limitations without obtaining a medical expert’s opinion on how those findings affected Plaintiff’s functioning. It is the ALJ, not a physician, who is charged with the responsibility of determining a claimant’s RFC based on the evidence as a whole.

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

Caito v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-22

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

Residual functional capacity must rest on evidence showing how impairments affect the claimant’s ability to work; an ALJ may not infer that effect from technical medical records alone.

Cortez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-22(a)(1)

And it is improper for the ALJ to infer what Plaintiff's capabilities to work are based on her own interpretation of those records and especially from technical diagnostic evidence like that included in the updated medical records here.

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

(SS) Swartout v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-24(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.”