20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

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

(SS) Hensley v. Commisioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-28(a)(1)

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

When assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ need not adopt a medical consultant’s proposed work limitations merely because the ALJ accepts some of the consultant’s findings.

Beaver, Amy v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2022-03-01

First, simply because the ALJ agreed with Gilyot-Montgomery that plaintiff would have some limitations on concentration, persistence or pace does not mean the ALJ was required to adopt the manner in which Gilyot-Montgomery translated those limitations into specific work-related limitations.

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

Rivera-Quiles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-01(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 assigns the ALJ responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity from the evidence as a whole.

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

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

An RFC assessment must have evidentiary support for distinguishing between handling and fingering limitations.

Tacker v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-15(a)(1)

Here, the ALJ did not cite any evidence or provide any reasoning that explains why the ALJ chose to include the limitation on fingering but not the limitation on handling, and the Court finds that decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

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

Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-16(a)(1), (a)(3)

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

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

A claimant’s RFC is the most he or she can do despite his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

An RFC assessment must include functional limitations supported by the record; an ALJ may omit work restrictions when the evidence supports finding none.

CROMAS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-17(a)

When determining the RFC, the Regulations and Seventh Circuit case law make clear that an ALJ's RFC assessment must incorporate all of a claimant's functional limitations supported by the medical record. ... Here, the ALJ spends several pages in the Step Two analysis discussing all medical evidence of Plaintiff's mental impairments, and specifically states the reasons why any work-related function limitations are not required.

An RFC assessment must consider the claimant’s physical and mental abilities, symptoms, and limitations that may interfere with sustained work.

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

“In making a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ must consider a claimant's physical abilities, mental abilities, [and] symptomology, including pain and other limitations which could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis.”

Section 404.1545 makes the ALJ responsible for assessing residual functional capacity.

Pitts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21

The ALJ is responsible for assessing RFC, not the Plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

An RFC assigning a claimant a level of work must be supported by evidence of the claimant's ability to meet that level's demands.

TASH v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-22(a)(1)

While the ALJ assessed that Diane T. could do medium work involving lifting 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently, the ALJ's decision does not identify any medical evidence to substantiate the claim that Diane T. had the ability to perform at these levels. As such, the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge between Diane T.'s past work, current level of daily activities, and an RFC for performing medium work, warranting remand on this issue.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to rest on evidence of the claimant’s functional abilities and to explain how the evidence supports each conclusion.

Fisher v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-24(a)

Such reassessed RFC must be based on some medical evidence in the record and shall be accompanied by a discussion and description of how the evidence supports each RFC conclusion.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places on the claimant the burden of establishing the scope of her residual functional capacity.

ANDREWS v. Berryhill · filed 2022-03-23(a)(3)

Plaintiff bears the burden of production and persuasion at steps one through four of the sequential evaluation process, Freeman v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 606, 608 (1st Cir. 2001), including the burden of establishing the scope of her residual functional capacity (“RFC”), see Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146; Vazquez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 683 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

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.

Quiles-Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(a)(3)

In reviewing the record for substantial evidence that supports or not the ALJ’s step two through four findings, I am mindful that the 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)).

Claimants must present evidence showing how an impairment limits their ability to work when challenging a residual functional capacity finding.

PAUCIELLO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-29(a)(3)

Claimants have the burden of presenting evidence that they do not have the RFC to perform any substantial gainful activity. ... First, Plaintiff has not presented any objective medical evidence to meet his burden of showing how his obesity actually impacted his work, as opposed to merely showing that he has obesity and also struggles to work.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) makes the ALJ responsible for assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Velasquez III v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-31(a)(3)

So, Velásquez’s argument that the ALJ formulated an RFC assessment on her own as to the use of a cane (ECF No. 19 at p. 5) fails because the ALJ and only the ALJ is directed and required to do so by regulation.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider relevant medical and other evidence when assessing RFC; a social interaction limit drawn solely from raw medical records lacks substantial evidence.

Najar v. Saul · filed 2022-04-04(a)(3)

An ALJ must also consider all the relevant medical evidence as well as other evidence, including subjective descriptions and observations of an individual’s limitations by the individual and other persons (e.g., family, friends). Id. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... While the ALJ, not a doctor, is responsible for determining the RFC, the ALJ should not interpret raw medical data to determine it. ... The Court thus concludes that the ALJ’s social interaction limitation—that Plaintiff’s interactions with coworkers, supervisors, and the general public is limited to not more than frequent—is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places the burden of establishing the scope of residual functional capacity on the claimant at steps one through four.

Ramos v. Berryhill · filed 2022-03-31(a)(3)

Plaintiff bears the burden of production and persuasion at steps one through four of the sequential evaluation process, Freeman v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 606, 608 (1st Cir. 2001), including the burden of establishing the scope of his residual functional capacity (“RFC”), see Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146; Vazquez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 683 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

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

Hudak v. Saul · filed 2022-04-25(a)(3)

Ultimately, however, the claimant bears the burden of demonstrating any functional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (“In general, you are responsible for providing the evidence we will use to make a finding about your residual functional capacity.”); see also Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 306 (2d Cir. 2009) (finding that the Commissioner need not provide additional evidence of claimant’s residual functional capacity).

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

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

This lack of evaluations from these psychologists appears to be a gap in the evidence, but Plaintiff has the burden of providing evidence, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3) (see Docket No. 27, Def. Memo. at 10).

An RFC must be based on all relevant evidence, and the ALJ must explain how the evidence supports the limitations assessed.

Hurst v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-11(a)(3)

The ALJ failed to adequately explain how the RFC properly reflects the persuasive opinions of Dr. Miller and Dr. Ringel with regard to Hurst’s poor concentration and persistence.

An RFC may omit additional limitations for worsening symptoms when the ALJ considers those symptoms and substantial evidence supports the limitations chosen.

Minix v. SSA · filed 2022-07-12

Ultimately, the ALJ did consider the conditions Ms. Minix alleges should have resulted in additional limitations and declined to impose such conditions. That determination was supported by substantial evidence, so this Court will not re-weigh the evidence to comply with Ms. Minix’s view of it.

An RFC finding may draw on partially persuasive medical opinions when the limitations are supported by record evidence.

Moreno v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-20(a)(1)

In sum, the ALJ did not reject all medical opinions in crafting the RFC -- he found the state agency psychologists’ opinions moderately persuasive and Dr. Connett’s less persuasive, and thus, he did not fill any evidentiary gaps with his own opinion.

An RFC finding must be based on relevant evidence but does not require a medical opinion addressing the claimant’s specific functional limitations.

Obaid v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-12(a)

Plaintiff incorrectly argues that the ALJ’s RFC is not supported by substantial evidence unless there is a medical opinion which addresses his specific functional limitations.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for the claimant’s remaining ability to work based on all relevant evidence, including medical records and the claimant’s own account of limitations.

LaChance v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-20

An ALJ determines the RFC “based on all the relevant evidence, including the medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and an individual’s own description of [her] limitations.” ... Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds the RFC Assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 measures residual functional capacity by the claimant’s credible limitations; alleged pain and medication side effects do not require additional limits when the record does not support them.

Monroe v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-23

A claimant's RFC is the most an individual can do despite the combined effects of all of his or her credible limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... However, the record does not support limitations beyond those listed in the RFC finding as discussed above.

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

Torres v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-29(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(a)(3) places on the claimant the burden of establishing the scope of her residual functional capacity.

O'Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(a)(3)

Plaintiff bears the burden of production and persuasion at steps one through four of the sequential evaluation process, Freeman v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 606, 608 (1st Cir. 2001), including the burden of establishing the scope of her residual RFC, see Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146, 107 S.Ct. 2287; Vazquez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 683 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

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

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(a)(3)

Plaintiff has the burden to provide evidence to establish her RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment based on relevant record evidence, including evidence of the claimant’s work-related abilities and limitations.

(SS) Matajcich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-08(a)

RFC is assessed based on the relevant evidence in the case record, including the medical history, medical source statements, and subjective descriptions and observations made by the claimant, family, neighbors, friends, or other persons. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 404.1545(a)(3). ... In light of the above, the RFC regarding incontinence was adequately explained and grounded in substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for the claimant’s impairments using medical and other record evidence.

GROFF v. SAUL · filed 2022-11-17

I am satisfied that the ALJ properly considered the evidence when determining the RFC. He thoroughly reviewed the medical record, considered the evidence from various health care providers, considered the testimony and other evidence of record, and explained his reasons for the RFC, which accounted for Ms. Groff’s impairments.

An ALJ must support an RFC assessment with a reasoned discussion of the evidence, including evidence bearing on a sit or stand limitation.

Morris v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-19

While the ALJ acknowledged the Appeals Council remand order directing her to give further consideration to the claimant’s maximum residual functional capacity and provide appropriate rationale with specific references to evidence of record in support of the assessed limitations, specifically the sit or stand option, the ALJ’s opinion fails to do so.

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

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-28(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) assigns the claimant responsibility for providing evidence of an impairment and its severity, and the ALJ responsibility for resolving evidentiary conflicts and determining residual functional capacity.

Soto-Colon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-31(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)(1) treats residual functional capacity as an administrative assessment based on all relevant evidence in the case record.

Joseph v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-16(a)(1)

An RFC finding is administrative in nature, not medical, and its determination is within the province of the ALJ.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from relevant evidence of the claimant’s limitations.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-14(a)

The ALJ determines a claimant’s RFC based on relevant evidence in the record, including 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).

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

Cromer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-14

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

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

McGinnis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-14

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)(3) assigns the claimant responsibility for evidence of an impairment and its severity and the ALJ responsibility for resolving evidentiary conflicts and determining residual functional capacity.

Ramos-Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-28(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).

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.

Segundo-Mendez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-29(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 provides evidence of an impairment and its severity, while the ALJ resolves evidentiary conflicts and determines residual functional capacity.

Rivera-Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-17(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 RFC includes functional limitations supported by substantial evidence; an impairment does not require an additional limitation without evidence that it affects the claimant’s functioning.

Pence v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-31

A claimant’s RFC is the most the claimant can do in a work setting on a “regular and continuing basis” despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... However, only limitations supported by substantial evidence must be incorporated into the RFC. Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1163–65 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff does not point to any functional limitations caused by her sleep apnea, nor is there any medical evidence stating that her sleep apnea causes any functional limitations. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in formulating the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity based on the record as a whole.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-02(a)

Ultimately, an ALJ, not a medical source, assesses the RFC based on the record at large.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including symptoms from nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Lovett v. Social Security · filed 2023-11-03(a)(3)

This analysis sufficiently shows that the ALJ considered Plaintiffs mental impairment symptoms while assessing Plaintiff's RFC and satisfies the requirements of assessing Plaintiff's RFC by evaluating all the relevant medical and other evidence as set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

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

(SS) Quiroz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-06(a)(1)

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

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

Tinsley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-08(a)(1)

Residual Functional Capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations and is assessed based on all relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1). An RFC must include all of the claimant’s functional limitations supported by the record. ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination, and Plaintiff has not shown the ALJ committed harmful legal error.

Section 404.1545 allows an ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from the relevant record evidence without obtaining another medical opinion when substantial evidence supports the finding.

Bass v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-22

In determining the RFC, the ALJ examines all medical evidence in the record. Webster v. Kijakazi, 19 F.4th 715, 718 (5th Cir. 2021); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (RFC is based on “all the relevant evidence in [an applicant’s] case record”). ... Moreover, regulations do not obligate an ALJ to procure additional medical opinions when the RFC is based on substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) bases residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence; the assessment need not mirror a particular medical opinion.

(SS) Gutierrez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-04(a)(3)

This is refuted by the regulations which state that the RFC need not mirror a particular opinion; it is an assessment formulated by the ALJ based on all relevant evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3).

Residual functional capacity does not account for the number of medical appointments because appointments are not functional limitations or restrictions on physical or mental capabilities.

McCook v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-20(a)(1)

The ... Court finds Plaintiffs number of medical appointments does not reflect an inability to work because doctors’ appointments are not a functional limitation or a restriction on her physical and mental capabilities.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on all record evidence, including relevant evidence of cane use.

Walker v. Social Security · filed 2024-01-04(a)(1)

The RFC is the most a claimant can still do in a work setting despite impairment related limitations and is based on all the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Even though this testimony cuts against the ALJ’s conclusions, the ALJ failed to articulate why this information was ignored when reaching his conclusion. AR 20. ... The Court finds the ALJ’s analysis regarding Plaintiff’s cane use was not supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, was a harmful error contributing to the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff was not disabled.

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity without a medical opinion on mental limitations when the record contains sufficient evidence to support the assessment.

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

The ALJ was not required to seek an opinion on mental limitations since the evidence of record was sufficient for her to assess the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires evidence of a claimant’s own functional limitations before an ALJ must include additional restrictions in the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Upshaw v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-02-22(a)

But because Upshaw merely points to “evidence” of what someone else with her conditions experienced and found helpful in alleviating symptoms, she has not shown that her impairments required the ALJ to account for additional limitations in her RFC for either her carpal tunnel syndrome or her venous insufficiency.

A claimant remains responsible for providing evidence used to determine residual functional capacity after beginning to receive retirement benefits.

(SS) Black v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-01(a)(3)

First, Plaintiff cites no authority, and the Court has not located any, stating that Plaintiff is relieved of her general responsibility to submit evidence in support of a disability claim because she has started receiving retirement benefits. See 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.”).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider relevant medical opinions and the combined effects of all impairments, including those that are not severe.

(SS) De Becerra v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-06(a)

The ALJ must consider all of the relevant medical opinions as well as the combined effects of all of the plaintiff’s impairments, even those that are not “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a); 416.945(a); Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). ... Here, the ALJ’s decision contains two irreconcilable RFC determinations and was based, at least in part, on evidence that belonged to another claimant. Under these circumstances, the court must find that the ALJ’s decision constituted harmful error.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to explain how the evidence supports the limitations it includes.

Winter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-28

The ALJ’s RFC assessment must build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and limitations included in the RFC. Without this, the Court is left to “speculate as to the basis for the RFC limitations” which it cannot do through its limited review.

A claimant bears the burden of establishing her residual functional capacity and producing supporting evidence.

Gauglione v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-29(a)(3)

Notably, it was Plaintiff’s burden to establish her RFC and to produce supporting evidence.

Section 404.1545 assigns formulation of residual functional capacity to the ALJ, so a physician’s opinion need not state limitations in the RFC’s precise terms to be persuasive.

Thomas v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-31

That Dr. Apostle did not frame functional limitations in the RFC’s precise terms, when formulation of the RFC was the responsibility of the ALJ, does not render the doctor’s resulting medical opinion unpersuasive.

A residual functional capacity finding must be supported by substantial evidence and cannot rely on a mischaracterization of the claimant’s reported activities.

Abdullah v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-01(a)(1)

The Court concludes, on this record, that there was not substantial evidence _ to present the Vocational Expert with an RFC that included that Plaintiff could “frequently finger, handle, and reach,” where that classification was based largely on the ALJ’s mischaracterization of Plaintiff's reported activity level.

A residual functional capacity finding is sustained when the ALJ considers the medical evidence and substantial evidence supports the finding.

Bajramovic v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-01

The ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence. In determining the Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ properly considered all medical evidence.

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

(SS) Baez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-04(a)(1)

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

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

Shotts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-08(a)(3)

The ALJ’s decision shows that he properly evaluated the record as a whole in accordance with the pertinent regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence in the record.

Larcomb v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-08(a)(1)

An ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC based on all the relevant evidence in the record.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do despite limitations, rather than the claimant’s minimal functional ability.

CHALMERS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-04-11(a)(1)

This differs from the RFC finding, which is a determination of the most a claimant can do despite his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

(SS) Stremple v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-15(a)(1)

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

An ALJ need not include limitations posed to a vocational expert in the residual functional capacity when the medical record does not support them.

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-15(a)

At base, if the medical record does not support adding such limitations, the ALJ does not err by not including all limitations posed to the vocational expert.

Section 404.1545(a) permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant record evidence even when no physician provides a functional assessment.

Ginder v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-04-18(a)

Nevertheless, an ALJ is empowered to consider all of the evidence in arriving at an RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using the medical evidence and explain how the chosen restrictions address the claimant’s limitations.

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

As long as the ALJ considers all the medical evidence and appropriately analyzes the medical opinions, an RFC consistent with the record is not error. ... In sum, remand is necessary for the ALJ to provide a more robust analysis of the consistency of Dr. Schwab’s opinion with the rest of the medical record, as well as to explain how the restrictions in the RFC adequately address Bruce’s limitations caused by his cervical spine.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires a claimant’s residual functional capacity assessment to be based on all relevant evidence in the case file.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-22(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC assessment must be based on all the relevant evidence in her case file.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite impairments and is based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Sanders v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-04-25(a)

An RFC determination is an assessment of what a claimant is still able to do despite the claimant’s impairments and is based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

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

ACHILLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-04-26(a)(1)

The ALJ’s RFC determination makes sense considering this analysis and the fact that the RFC determination is the most a claimant can do despite his or her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Harwood v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-30(a)(3)

The ALJ considers all relevant medical and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... The record demonstrates the ALJ adequately considered Dr. Albertsen’s evaluation in assessing Mr. H.’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(b) makes the ability to lift and carry relevant to assessing residual functional capacity, even when the claimant does not allege an arm impairment.

Thompson v. SSA · filed 2024-04-30(b)

But Thompson’s ability to lift and carry was relevant because it is a key component in the RFC analysis.

Section 404.1545(a) allows an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity when the existing evidence is sufficient to do so.

Davis v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-07-15(a)

Here, the evidence before the ALJ was sufficient to assess Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to connect the evidence of a claimant’s impairments to the functional limits found.

Knuckles v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-29(a)(1)

In doing so, the ALJ did not explain how “mild to moderate” diagnoses lead to the functional limitations found; that is, he does not explain why Plaintiff would be limited to 6 hours of standing and 6 hours of sitting or to what extent she should be limited in use of her extremities.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence; a specific medical opinion is not required.

Seger v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-01(a)

Although the RFC must be supported by some medical evidence, “there is no requirement that an RFC finding be supported by a specific medical opinion.” Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir. 2016). Instead, the RFC must be determined by the ALJ based on all the relevant evidence, which includes his subjective symptoms, his testimony, the medical evidence, and his daily activities.

An RFC determination need not mirror a single medical opinion, but an ALJ may not independently assess clinical findings to supply functional limitations.

Eterno v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-10

Defendant correctly points out that an RFC determination does not need to be based on (or mirror precisely) a single medical opinion. ... Nevertheless, an ALJ is not permitted to render his own medical opinions or independently assess clinical findings.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite impairments; a leg elevation limitation need not be included when the record does not support needing it during the workday.

Denny, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-11(a)

The RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite the limitations imposed by his impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The ALJ reasonably found that the record did not support the need for a leg elevation limitation during the workday.

An RFC assessment may be supported by objective findings and other medical evidence even without a medical opinion addressing the claimant’s physical abilities.

Kenyon v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-27

And the Court finds that the record was sufficiently developed to support the ALJ’s decision, and she was under no obligation to obtain an additional medical opinion. Although there was no medical opinion on record regarding Plaintiffs physical abilities during the relevant period, the Eighth Circuit has long held that objective medical findings and other medical evidence can constitute sufficient medical support for an RFC assessment in the absence of opinion evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires residual functional capacity to be assessed using all relevant evidence in the record.

(SS) Plowman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-30(a)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s assessment of the RFC based on all relevant evidence in the record, including Dr. Hwang’s medical opinion.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC finding to rest on evidence supporting the stated work capacity; daily activities that do not involve comparable lifting do not, without explanation, support a medium-work RFC.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Secuirty · filed 2024-09-30(a)(1)

The ALJ’s decision, however, does not explain how these ADLs establish Plaintiff can perform medium work (i.e., lifting 25 pounds frequently and 50 pounds occasionally) or are inconsistent with sedentary and light work. As normally performed, none require lifting 25 to 50 pounds, even occasionally. The cited ADLs, therefore, do not constitute substantial evidence establishing Plaintiff is capable of medium work, and the decision’s failure to explain how the ADLs establish Plaintiff can perform medium work (and are inconsistent with light and/or sedentary work restrictions) is error.

Section 404.1545 calls for an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence; an adequate record does not require a medical-source opinion on RFC.

Strain v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-30

It is a factual finding “made by the [ALJ] based on all the relevant evidence in the case record,” Felton-Miller v. Astrue, 459 F. App’x 226, 230–31 (4th Cir. 2011), including objective clinical findings, medical opinions, and the claimant’s own statements, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... Moreover, because the record was adequate to resolve Elmer’s DIB claim, the ALJ was not required to obtain a medical-source opinion addressing his RFC during the relevant time.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC finding to rest on evidence of the claimant’s functional abilities; an ALJ must explain how the evidence supports the assessed limitations.

Leckie-Adams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-29

Here, the physical RFC was based on nothing more than bare medical findings, and, even worse, the ALJ did not explain how those findings supported the RFC. That alone requires remand.

The claimant bears the burden of establishing her residual functional capacity and showing that the assessed capacity is deficient.

Flake v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-02-10(a)

Thus, the Court holds that Plaintiff has not met her burden to establish her RFC or that the indicated RFC was deficient as to her mental impairments.

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

Cordero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-20(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. 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).

An RFC may include limitations beyond those in medical opinions when supported by testimony and test results; any error in adding limitations that narrow the RFC is harmless.

(SS) Barner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-25(a)

Rather, the ALJ relied on the expert opinions and imposed limitations greater than those opined by the experts based on the subjective testimony and test results concerning Plaintiff’s abilities. Because the additional limitations resulted in a narrower RFC than that considered by the experts, any alleged error in imposing the additional limitations was harmless.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment of what a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations; the assessment must be supported by medical evidence.

Brooks v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-27

RFC is what a claimant 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. ... The Court further finds the ALJ’s RFC determination — particularly his findings regarding Plaintiff’s ability to lift and grasp and hold — is not supported by medical evidence.

An RFC assessment considers all relevant medical and other evidence and need not include limitations unsupported by substantial evidence.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-09(a)(3)

An ALJ’s RFC assessment is “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3) and 416.945(a)(3); ... Although Plaintiff testified at the hearing that he was only able to sit for 30 minutes at a time before needing to change positions, the ALJ is not required to include limitations in the RFC that are not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

A claimant is responsible for providing evidence used to determine residual functional capacity and cannot rely on the absence of later medical records to support an otherwise uncorroborated limitation.

(SS) Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-10(a)(3)

As a general rule, a claimant cannot be found disabled “unless he furnishes such medical and other evidence of the existence thereof[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (emphasis added); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (“In general, you are responsible for providing the evidence we will use to make a finding about your residual functional capacity.”). ... If pertinent evidence postdated any request the Commissioner makes for such evidence, the plaintiff cannot argue that its absence from the record justifies crediting an otherwise unsupported assertion.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence, including statements from medical sources.

Duff v. SSA · filed 2025-06-11(a)

The ALJ bases his or her determination on all relevant evidence in the case record, including statements from medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, 404.1545(a)(1)–(4).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to explain how the evidence supports the functional limits in an RFC assessment.

White v. O'Malley · filed 2025-07-10(a)(1)

An ALJ’s RFC assessment must discuss and describe how the evidence supports each conclusion, and must cite specific medical facts and nonmedical evidence in doing so, as well as resolve any material inconsistencies or ambiguities in the evidence of record. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7. The ALJ did not undergo this process here. In other words, although he thoroughly summarized the medical evidence of record, the ALJ did not justify how he translated his understanding of the medical evidence into a conclusion that Plaintiff could engage in light work with restrictions.

Section 404.1545 makes the ALJ responsible for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity from the relevant evidence.

WIRTH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-08-11

Instead, the ALJ must independently analyze the relevant evidence to determine the claimant’s RFC, and it is the ALJ alone who must formulate the RFC.

An RFC determination must consider all relevant evidence, including medical sources’ diagnoses, treatment, observations, and opinions.

Williams v. Dudek · filed 2025-08-27

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

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

Usher v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-17(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider medical evidence and subjective symptoms; an unscheduled bathroom-break limitation need not be included when unsupported by other record evidence.

Ellis v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-25

In rendering an RFC determination, the ALJ must consider objective medical facts, diagnoses, and medical opinions based on such facts, as well as a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms, including pain and descriptions of other limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... Here, Plaintiff’s contention that he required unscheduled bathroom breaks in the RFC is based solely on his own testimony and is not supported by other evidence in the record.

An RFC finding may rely on examination findings that address the claimant’s ability to work; it need not be supported by a specific medical opinion.

Leslie v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-29

As for Plaintiff’s assertion that the ALJ had no functional medical evidence available after the ALJ’s partial discounting of the medical opinions, 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 permits an RFC finding consistent with the record when the ALJ considers all medical evidence and appropriately analyzes the medical opinions.

McCarthy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-30

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

An RFC assessment must be tied to record evidence and consistently explain how the evidence supports the claimant’s ability to sustain work.

Draper · filed 2026-01-14

However, the Commissioner must tie the RFC to evidence in the record, provide a consistent assessment of the expert opinions, and square Plaintiff’s non-linear treatment history with the ability to nonetheless maintain full-time employment.

An ALJ may adopt a medical source opinion, but the ALJ remains responsible for assessing residual functional capacity.

Hayden · filed 2026-05-01

Of course, while an ALJ may decide to adopt an opinion in a medical source statement, “the RFC assessment is an issue reserved to the ALJ.” Guerra v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:15-cv-00224-SLC, 2016 WL 6818878, at *7 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 18, 2016) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(e), 416.945(e), SSR 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *2 (July 2, 1996)).

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

Horwitz v. Saul · filed 2019-09-12

A Plaintiff’s RFC is what she can do despite her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... There is no requirement that an RFC finding be supported by a specific medical opinion.

An RFC assessment must account for limitations caused by symptoms such as pain and be supported by evidence of the claimant’s ability to work.

Willison v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-08-12(a)(3)

Limitations resulting from symptoms such as pain are also factored into the assessment. ... 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 assessing residual functional capacity must consider medical evidence and the claimant’s description of physical limitations, including pain.

Force v. SSA · filed 2006-05-02

As part of the process of determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must review the medical evidence regarding the claimant’s physical limitations as well as her own description of those physical limitations, including her subjective complaints of pain.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider medical opinions and the claimant’s testimony about limitations, including those caused by pain, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Wyatt v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-25(a)(3)

In determining the claimant’s RFC the ALJ must consider any medical opinions about what the claimant can still do as well as the claimant’s own testimony concerning her limitations, including limitations resulting from pain.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including medical records, lay evidence, and the effects of symptoms such as pain.

Robbins v. Social Security Administration · filed 2006-10-26(a)(3)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including, inter alia, medi- cal records, lay evidence, and “the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically 17970 ROBBINS v. SSA determinable impairment.”

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including the claimant's account, medical records, and observations from treating physicians and others.

Roberson v. Linda McMahon, etc. · filed 2007-04-02(a)

When determining a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including the claimant's own description of her or his limitations, as well as medical records, and observations of treating physicians and others. See Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (8th Cir. 2001); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 404.1546.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including the claimant’s description of limitations, medical records, and observations by physicians and others.

Roberson v. Michael J. Astrue, 1 Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2007-04-02(a)

When determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including the claimant’s own description of her or his limitations, as well as medical records, and observations of treating physicians and others.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s statements about what she can do when assessing residual functional capacity.

Dragon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-26(a)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ will consider her statements about what she can do. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... The ALJ found Dragon’s testimony credible to the extent it confirmed the ALJ’s own conclusion. Thus, it appears the ALJ afforded Dragon’s testimony no weight at all because the ALJ had come to its conclusion independent of the information from her testimony. ... Thus, we conclude that the ALJ’s RFC and the determination that Dragon was able to perform her past relevant work given that RFC were not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) requires consideration of the entire record, including the claimant’s testimony, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Zenka v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-15(a)

On remand, the ALJ should consider the entire record, including Plaintiffs testimony, in the RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s descriptions of limitations and symptoms when assessing residual functional capacity, including the claimant’s testimony and credibility.

Prim v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-12(a)(3)

Because “[a]n RFC determination is an assessment, based on all relevant evidence, of a claimant’s remaining ability to do work despite her impairments[,]” Packer, supra, 542 Fed.Appx. at 891, consideration of a claimant’s testimony and credibility is certainly an aspect of any such determination, see id. at 892 (in finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish that her RFC assessment was not supported by substantial evidence, the Eleventh Circuit considered, among other matters, the ALJ’s consideration of Packer’s testimony, specifically the credibility determination).

An RFC assessment may omit a claimant’s reported need to recline when the ALJ properly discredits that statement, even if a physician recorded it.

Dole v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-30

Because the ALJ properly did not find Mr. Dole credible, he was not required to accept Mr. Dole’s statement to Dr. Anderson regarding his need to recline. The ALJ properly determined Mr. Dole’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider family members’ and other lay witnesses’ observations of a claimant’s impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Pratt v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-31(a)(3)

The Social Security Regulations also require that an ALJ consider the descriptions and observations of a claimant’s impairments provided by the claimant’s “family, neighbors, friends, or other persons” when determining the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... The Court thus finds the ALJ properly rejected the boyfriend and son’s opinions to the extent that they addressed symptoms and complaints similar to those expressed by Ms. Pratt.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ may consider a claimant’s descriptions of limitations, but daily activities must shed light on the claimant’s ability to work.

Collazo v. Saul · filed 2020-11-30(a)(3)

In formulating an RFC, the ALJ is of course entitled to consider “descriptions and observations” made by a claimant about his own limitations. ... Reports of these daily activities, however, must “offer insight on how plaintiff’s impairments affect her ability to work and undertake activities of daily life.”

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptom testimony when assessing residual functional capacity but does not require the ALJ to credit it.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-02(a)(3)

The ALJ must consider the claimant’s subjective testimony when determining his RFC but need not necessarily credit that testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider statements from family members when assessing residual functional capacity.

Keener v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-16(a)(3)

However, current regulations continue to require the ALJ to consider “all the relevant medical and other evidence in your case record” when formulating the RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). This requirement specifically includes statements provided by family members. Id. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) allows an ALJ to consider a family member’s observations when assessing residual functional capacity; lack of medical training or a familial relationship alone does not justify discounting them.

Provow v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-02(a)(3)

The fact that Plaintiff’s father was not medically trained to “make exacting observations” of Plaintiff’s impairments by itself is not a proper basis to discount his statement. ... Additionally, while Plaintiff’s father is not a disinterested third-party, his familial relationship with Plaintiff alone is not a valid reason to discount the symptoms and limitations he outlined in his statement.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider a family member’s descriptions of the claimant’s limitations, even when the family member is not a medical source.

Sheppard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(a)(3)

Although, as a nonmedical source, the ALJ was not required to articulate the persuasiveness of Matthew’s wife’s statement, he was still required to consider it.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s reported sitting limitations when assessing residual functional capacity for sedentary work.

Vergara v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-09(a)(3)

When assigning an RFC for sedentary work and posing hypotheticals to the VE, the ALJ never mentioned —much less discussed—Vergara’s reports of back and leg pain from prolonged sitting. This constitutes reversible error.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider descriptions of a claimant’s limitations from family members and other lay witnesses.

Imperato v. Saul · filed 2022-11-30(a)(3)

In formulating a claimant’s RFC, SSA regulations provide that an ALJ “will also consider descriptions and observations of your limitations from your impairment(s), including limitations that result from your symptoms, such as pain, provided by you, your family, neighbors, friends, or other persons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... But declining to articulate how evidence is considered is different from failing to consider the evidence at all. ... Instead, as this case is already being remanded on other grounds, the Court directs the ALJ to “consider[] . . . the probative value, if any, of [the] lay witness statement[s].” Thibault, No. 5:10-CV-188, 2011 WL 5024460, at *6.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider relevant lay observations, but the ALJ need not expressly discuss a relative’s letter that repeats complaints the ALJ has implicitly rejected.

Garcia v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-27(a)(1), (a)(3)

The SSA Regulations require, when assessing a claimant’s RFC, that the ALJ’s determination be “based on all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” including not only medical evidence and medical source statements, but also “descriptions and observations of [the claimant’s] limitations . . . provided by [the claimant], [or the claimant’s] family, neighbors, friends, or other persons.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1) and (a)(3), §§ 416.945(a)(1) and (a)(3); see also SSR 96–8p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34474, 34477 (July 2, 1996) (“SSR 96–8p”) (advising that the RFC assessment must consider all relevant evidence, including medical history, medical evaluations, daily activities, and lay evidence). Here, although the ALJ did not specifically discuss Mr. Casanova’s letter in the Decision, his failure to do so does not warrant remand.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider lay witness evidence from nonmedical sources when assessing how a claimant’s symptoms affect daily activities and ability to work.

McCuistion v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-27(a)(3)

The revised regulations that apply to disability applications filed on or after March 27, 2017, provide that lay witness testimony fits within the category of evidence from nonmedical sources, which the ALJ will “consider” in how a claimant’s symptoms affect his activities of daily living and his ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1413(a)(4), 404.1529(a), 416.913(a)(4), 416.945(a)(3), and 416.929(a). ... The ALJ’s opinion indicates that he considered the lay witness statement and further provides two reasons for rejecting it.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider nonmedical opinions, though not with the same specificity as medical opinions.

Sheppard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-11(a)(3)

An ALJ’s decision must also evaluate any non-medical opinions of record, albeit not with the same specificity as medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider medical and nonmedical evidence, including lay witness statements, without requiring lay witnesses to have medical training.

Beal v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-31(a)(3)

Furthermore, not only does the ALJ blatantly misstate the regulation, and is in fact required to “consider all of the medical and nonmedical evidence,” including evidence offered by “family, neighbors, friends, or other persons,” but the logic of such a statement does not exist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. If lay witnesses were required to have medical training, then they would not be lay witnesses. Therefore, the ALJ erred in failing to properly consider the lay witness statements.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider evidence of limitations offered by lay people.

Garcia v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-23(a)(3)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3), an ALJ is tasked with considering all evidence that demonstrate limitation, including that which is offered by lay people.

An ALJ need not include a claimant’s alleged symptom limitations in the residual functional capacity assessment when the ALJ has discredited those statements.

Roberts v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-25(a)(3)

Thus, because the ALJ discredited Plaintiff’s subjective statements, the ALJ was not required to incorporate Plaintiff’s statements regarding intensity, persistence, and limiting effects in the RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the Commissioner to consider statements from family and other lay witnesses about a claimant’s limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Bell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-07(a)(3)

The revised regulations did not change the requirement that the Commissioner consider lay witness statements about a claimant’s symptoms, daily activities, and ability to work—rather, the regulations continue to recognize that such statements are competent evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits family, neighbors, friends, and others to describe a claimant’s functional limitations, and those statements must be considered when assessing residual functional capacity.

Rodriguez v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-21(a)(3)

In the Court’s view, it is error to rely on these justifications to reject the third-party statements in this case. The Social Security Administration recognizes the importance of statements from family members. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (permitting claimant to submit “descriptions and observations” about her functional limitations from “family, neighbors, friends, or other persons”); SSR 16-3p (nonmedical sources such as family and friends may provide helpful information to assess the claimant's intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms and must be considered properly). The Court finds the ALJ used an improper standard to assess them, and remand is required.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider lay witness descriptions of a claimant’s limitations when formulating residual functional capacity.

Campbell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-30(a)(3)

But the ALJ is required under existing regulations to consider lay testimony when formulating the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); SSR 96-8p.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an ALJ to consider third-party statements as other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Welch v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-21(a)(3)

The Court finds that although the third-party statements at issue were not medical opinions, the ALJ properly considered them as “other evidence” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider lay witness descriptions of a claimant’s limitations, and the revised medical-opinion regulations do not eliminate that duty.

Levander v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-30(a)(3)

The new regulations did not remove the requirement that an ALJ consider lay witness statements. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (“We will also consider descriptions and observations of your limitations from your impairment(s) . . . by you, your family, neighbors, friends, or other persons.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“We will consider any description your . . . nonmedical sources may provide . . . .”); SSR 96-8p (“The RFC assessment must be based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, such as: . . . lay evidence[.]”).

A claimant’s descriptions of limitations, including pain, must be considered when determining residual functional capacity.

Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-06(a)(3)

Descriptions and observations provided by the claimant which detail the claimant’s limitations from her impairments, including limitations that result from her symptoms, such as pain, will be considered in determining residual functional capacity. Id. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... The ALJ gave due consideration to Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain and highlighted inconsistencies with the objective evidence. (Tr. 26).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider lay witness descriptions and observations of a claimant’s limitations despite the newer medical opinion regulations.

Humphreys v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-05(a)(3)

Those regulations did not remove the requirement, reflected throughout the regulations, that an ALJ consider lay witness statements.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider the claimant’s descriptions of her limitations, but need not specifically discuss hearing testimony to show it was considered.

Venegas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-28(a)(3)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” including the claimant’s own “descriptions and observations of [her] limitations from [her] impairment(s), including limitations that result from [her] symptoms, such as pain.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... Simply because the ALJ did not discuss Venegas’s hearing statements does not mean that the ALJ did not consider them.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider lay witness evidence of a claimant’s limitations; the revised medical-opinion regulations did not remove that requirement.

Jarman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-22(a)(3)

The new regulations did not remove the requirement that an ALJ consider a lay witness statement, and this requirement is the genesis of the germane reasons standard. See Rhea L. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:24-CV-870, 2024 WL 5244402, at *4–5 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 30, 2024) (citing Dodrill, 12 F.3d at 919; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1529(a); SSR 96-8p).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires consideration of observations about a claimant’s limitations from family, friends, and others; their relationship to the claimant alone does not justify discounting those observations.

Gardner · filed 2025-10-21(a)(3)

What is more, assuming bias merely because of the relationship between the claimant and the witness undermines the very purpose of a third-party report, namely, to provide observations from someone who knows the claimant and can attest to her medical or mental condition.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider lay witness statements; the new regulations did not eliminate the requirement to give germane reasons for rejecting them.

Sheats · filed 2025-12-17(a)(3)

The new regulations did not remove the requirement that an ALJ consider a lay witness statement, and this requirement is the genesis of the germane reasons standard. See Rhea L. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:24-CV-870, 2024 WL 5244402, at *4–5 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 30, 2024) (citing Dodrill, 12 F.3d at 919; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1529(a); SSR 96-8p).

An RFC assessment must account for a claimant’s reported limitations in daily activities; an assessment that misconstrues those activities may lack substantial evidence.

Salat · filed 2026-03-09(a)(1)

In this assessment, the ALJ again failed to acknowledge the limitations Ms. S alleged with her activities or misconstrued her responses as an admission that she regularly engaged in these activities. Thus, the Court cannot find that the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence, and remand is required.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider nonmedical sources’ descriptions and observations of a claimant’s functional limitations, including those in an investigative report.

Duran · filed 2026-03-18(a)(3)

As a threshold matter, the ALJ permissibly considered the investigative report in evaluating Mr. D.’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider family members’ descriptions of a claimant’s limitations.

Brookins, II v. Saul · filed 2020-07-30(a)(3)

The regulations require an ALJ to “consider all of the available evidence from [a claimant’s] medical and nonmedical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (in assessing RFC, “[w]e will also consider descriptions and observations of your limitations from your impairments(s), including limitations that result from your symptoms, such as pain, provided by you, your family, neighbors, friends, or other persons.”). ... In this case, the ALJ acknowledged the letter and properly explained why she gave it little weight: “most important” was the fact that Mr. Brookins’ mother’s testimony was “simply not consistent with the preponderance of the opinions and observations by medical doctors” for the “same reasons Mr. Brookins’ testimony was inconsistent with the evidence.”

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits consideration of a claimant's daily activities when determining residual functional capacity.

Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-29(a)(3)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's activities of daily living as she testified to them and as evidenced in the record when determining her RFC and limitations to work, and those activities substantially support the ALJ's ultimate RFC finding.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an ALJ to consider reports of daily activities when assessing residual functional capacity in light of the whole record.

Krupilis v. Saul · filed 2022-07-25(a)(3)

Again, we are not persuaded by this argument. In contrast, the Commissioner correctly points out that the new regulations state that in constructing an RFC, “[the ALJ] will assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 CFR § 404.1545(a)(3). This includes, among other things, “reports of daily activities.” Id. Although the ALJ will consider activities of daily living, this evidence will be considered in conjunction with the record as a whole, as the ALJ did here.

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s reported daily activities when assessing residual functional capacity if the assessment is supported by the record.

Watson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-12

Nevertheless, an ALJ may rely upon a Plaintiff’s reported activities of daily living in formulating an RFC if that determination is supported by evidence in the record.

Section 404.1545(a) permits daily activities to inform the assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

(SS) Gausling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-30(a)

The RFC is the most a person “can still do despite [the individual’s] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a). Thus, while engaging in daily activities does not necessarily discredit an individual’s testimony as to their capabilities, engaging in those activities may demonstrate the extent of an individual’s capabilities which can be considered in the RFC determination.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities alongside other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

GALLOWAY v. DUDEK · filed 2025-07-18(a)(1), (a)(3)

An ALJ is required to consider the number and type of activities in which she engages when assessing her RFC. ... Consideration of Plaintiff’s activities of daily living in conjunction with all other record evidence, was entirely proper.

Residual functional capacity requires assessing whether a claimant can perform the physical acts needed for work day after day; some daily activities alone do not establish that ability.

Eula Forehand v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2004-04-26

Forehand’s ability to engage in some life activities, however, does not support a finding that she retains the ability to work.

An ALJ must assess a claimant’s ability to perform relevant physical functions when determining residual functional capacity; failure to assess a critically relevant function can warrant remand.

Gardner · filed 2026-03-26(b)

However, when a function is “critically relevant to determining [a claimant’s] disability status,” remand for failure to perform such an analysis is appropriate. Dowling, 986 F.3d at 389. Had the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s ability to sit, they may have found Plaintiff to possess greater limitations that, in turn, could have altered the ultimate disability determination.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate a claimant’s physical functions, including the ability to stand and walk, with enough explanation to permit meaningful review.

Bisignano · filed 2026-03-30(b)

Therefore, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s ability to stand and walk is supported by substantial evidence and permits meaningful review, and remand is not warranted on this issue.

An ALJ need not make a separate function-by-function RFC assessment when medical opinions define the relevant limits or a regulatory work category supplies them.

(SS) Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-15(a)

However, the ALJ is not required to make a specific function-by-function assessment “where she relies on medical opinions that define the relevant functional limitations,” or defines the plaintiff’s RFC as “sedentary,” “light,” or “heavy,” which include “well-defined function-by-function parameters” set by regulation, both of which the ALJ did here.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the RFC assessment to address exertional abilities, including standing and walking, when the evidence makes those abilities material.

Severson v. Saul · filed 2020-03-10(b)

“The RFC assessment is a function-by-function assessment based upon all of the relevant evidence of an individual’s ability to do work-related activities,” including exertional capacities regarding sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling. SSR 96-8p; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... The ALJ here violated SSR 96-8p when he failed to perform a function-by-function assessment of Severson’s ability to stand and walk.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity through an analysis of the claimant’s functional abilities supported by the evidence.

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-19(a)(1)

In this case, the ALJ did go through a function-by-function analysis, where the ALJ examined the medical opinions and Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her own medical conditions, mental capabilities, and Plaintiff’s ability to continue normal activities in her daily life.

An RFC assessment considers a claimant’s physical, mental, and other affected work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis.

Bunnell v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-20(b)-(d)

SSR 96-8p requires the RFC to identify a claimant’s functional limitations or restrictions and assess his work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis. Id. This includes the functions related to the claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, and any other abilities affected by the claimant’s impairment or impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b)-(d), 416.945(b)-(d). ... Here, the ALJ conducted a function-by-function assessment with a thorough discussion of the evidence and a logical explanation of the effects of plaintiff’s symptoms. Tr. 18-22.

An RFC assessment ordinarily addresses functional limitations across the seven strength demands, but omission of a formal function-by-function analysis is harmless when the ALJ considers the pertinent limitations.

Garcia v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-04

Ordinarily, “[t]he RFC assessment must first identify the individual’s functional limitations or restrictions and assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis,” including the “seven strength demands” of sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling. Id. at *1, 5; (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945). ... As such, the Court finds Hendron applicable and holds that, even if the ALJ somehow omitted the required assessment, he did not omit a pertinent limitation when discussing Ms. Garcia’s RFC.