20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

Section 404.1545(b) requires assessment of physical residual functional capacity by function, including sitting, standing, walking, pushing, and pulling, with an explanation of that assessment.

Alhilfy v. Saul · filed 2021-02-09(b)

On remand, the ALJ must assess the RFC on a function-by-function basis in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) as to sitting, standing, walking, pushing and pulling, and the ALJ must explain that assessment in detail and not rely on summary conclusion or circular reasoning such as giving weight to an expert consistent with the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to identify a claimant’s physical and mental limitations when assessing residual functional capacity; a detailed discussion of their effects can satisfy that analysis.

Olivera-Bahamundi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(b), (c)

The actual analysis requires that the ALJ identify any limitations in physical and mental abilities. ... In this case, however, the ALJ goes into great detail describing the effects of plaintiff’s various ailments (Tr. 35-37: discussing in detail how obesity affects plaintiff, including his ability to stand, walk and sit; discussing the medical history and findings of several physicians who treated plaintiff, particularly as to his mental health, and adopting their view of the evidence over plaintiff’s own).

An ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment does not require an explicit function-by-function analysis in every case.

McCoy v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29

There is no per se rule requiring remand if the function-by-function analysis is not explicit.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s work-related physical abilities before assigning an exertional residual functional capacity.

Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(b)

The ALJ erred in determining that Plaintiff can do medium work before fully assessing his work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis.

Section 404.1545(b) requires a function-by-function RFC assessment, but an ALJ’s explicit findings may imply no limits in functions she does not discuss.

Briegel v. Saul · filed 2021-07-08(b)

From the ALJ’s explicit findings, the Court can infer that she implicitly found no limits as to other functions. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the RFC.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to describe a claimant’s exertional abilities by referring to a defined work category when that category adequately specifies those abilities.

Dright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-15

As in Terry, the Court finds that the ALJ’s reference to “light work” as defined in the regulations adequately defines Claimant’s exertional abilities, given that SSR 83-10 defines “light work” to require standing/walking off and on for approximately six hours per workday, with intermittent sitting for the remainder of the workday.

An RFC assessment may be upheld despite a missing explicit function-by-function analysis when the ALJ’s reasoning can be discerned and substantial evidence supports the decision.

Green v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-09(a)(1)

Further, even if the ALJ erred with respect to the function-by-function assessment, remand is warranted “only where ‘[the Court] [is] unable to fathom the [] rationale in relation to evidence in the record.” Britt, 2021 WL 2181704, at *5 (internal citation omitted). I am able to discern the ALJ’s rationale in this case and determine that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment under § 404.1545 must analyze how a claimant’s impairments affect work functions; failure to do so may warrant remand.

Tayman v. Saul · filed 2021-08-16

Here, although the ALJ acknowledged 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945 and SSR 96-8p (R. at 16), “the ALJ did not indicate that [her] RFC assessment was rooted in a function-by-function analysis of how [Plaintiff’s] impairments impacted [his] ability to work.” ... The Court finds that remand is appropriate here because of the ALJ’s failure to engage in a function-by-function analysis.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment grounded in the claimant’s work-related functions; failure to perform that analysis can warrant remand.

Holt v. Saul · filed 2021-08-16

The Court finds that remand is appropriate here because of the ALJ’s failure to engage in a function-by-function analysis.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) governs residual functional capacity; an ALJ’s failure to state a function-by-function assessment does not require remand when the court can discern the ALJ’s rationale from the record.

Burney v. Saul · filed 2021-09-16(a)(1)

I find any error with respect to the ALJ’s failure to perform a function-by-function assessment harmless. Even if Plaintiff is correct that the ALJ’s decision does not explicitly contain a function-by-function assessment, the Court is able to determine the ALJ’s “rationale in relation to the record.” See Britt, 2021 WL 2181704, at *5.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment of relevant work functions that permits meaningful review; failure to perform that analysis warrants remand when it frustrates review.

Hall v. Saul · filed 2021-09-21

Because the ALJ’s failure to engage in a function-by-function analysis frustrates meaningful review, the Court remands this case for further proceedings.

Section 404.1545 requires a function-by-function RFC assessment of how a claimant’s impairments affect the ability to work; failure to perform it can warrant remand.

Brooks v. Saul · filed 2021-09-24

The Court finds that remand is appropriate here because of the ALJ’s failure to engage in a function-by-function analysis.

Section 404.1545(b) permits an ALJ’s findings on identified functional limits to support an implicit finding of no limits on other functions.

Summerhill v. Saul · filed 2021-09-27(b)

See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) (instructing that the RFC should identify limitations on a function-by-function basis). ... From the ALJ’s explicit findings, the Court can infer that he implicitly found no limits as to other functions. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the RFC.

An ALJ can satisfy the function-by-function RFC assessment requirement by considering the medical record and functional limitations without writing a separate narrative for each function.

Pesco v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-29(b)

Here, after the ALJ set forth Plaintiff’s RFC, including associated limitations, he went on to discuss the medical record in detail, reviewing approximately twenty medical visits. The ALJ also listed, and considered, the functional limitations set forth in five doctors’ medical opinions — Richard Cohen (psychiatric medical expert), Teresita Ruiz (treating psychiatrist), Shtock, Komolafe, and Kaplan. This is sufficient, as an ALJ “need not provide a narrative discussion for each function.”

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment of relevant work functions that permits meaningful review when the evidence conflicts.

Barbour v. Saul · filed 2021-09-30

I find that, considering the record in this case, the inadequacies in the ALJ’s function-by-function assessment, and evaluation of the medical opinion evidence, frustrate meaningful judicial review.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to address the claimant’s work-related functions; failure to do so may warrant remand.

Houtz v. Saul · filed 2021-11-10

The Court finds that remand is also appropriate here because of the ALJ’s failure to engage in a function-by-function analysis.

An RFC assessment must evaluate the claimant’s work functions; failure to conduct a function-by-function analysis can warrant remand.

Williams v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-12

The Court finds that remand is also appropriate here because of the ALJ’s failure to engage in a function-by-function analysis.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess relevant functions when determining residual functional capacity and explain how the evidence supports that assessment.

Carree v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-02

Finally, the Magistrate Judge considered the ALJ’s RFC Assessment, and noted once again that the ALJ’s analysis did not follow the regulatory framework under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 and SSR 96-8p, because the ALJ did not “engage in a function-by-function analysis as to relevant functions in assessing” Plaintiff’s RFC. ... Accordingly, the court adopts the Report herein.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity and explain how a claimant’s symptoms affect work abilities.

Munn v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-18(a)(3)

Because the ALJ failed to properly include a function-by-function analysis in his RFC discussion, the court cannot find the RFC analysis to be supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545’s RFC framework requires a function-by-function assessment, which an ALJ may perform by relying on state agency consultants’ analyses.

Vannoy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-07

In Dowling, the Fourth Circuit emphasized that a function-by-function assessment of a claimant’s abilities must be based on the correct regulatory framework, i.e., that set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and/or 416.945 and SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996). ... However, the ALJ did reference those regulations, see AR at 20, and, as discussed below, appropriately relied on the state agency consultants’ findings to conduct a function-by-function analysis of Plaintiff’s limitations.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s work functions under the RFC framework before stating the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Bell v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-01(a)

The Fourth Circuit has emphasized that the function-by-function assessment of a claimant’s abilities, which is a necessary prerequisite to the RFC finding, must be based on the correct regulatory framework, i.e. the framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945, and SSR 96–8p. ... For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that ALJ Brinkley applied an incorrect framework when assessing Plaintiff’s RFC.

An RFC assessment can stand without an express function-by-function analysis when the ALJ’s reasoning adequately connects the evidence to the limitations found.

ERSKINE v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-02-24

Here, the ALJ did not perform a function-by-function analysis of Plaintiff’s work-related abilities (see Tr. 42-45); however, no basis for remand exists, because the ALJ’s decision nevertheless supplies the necessary “accurate and logical bridge,” Woods, 888 F.3d at 694 (internal quotation marks omitted), between the evidence and his findings that Plaintiff’s (A) multiple sclerosis qualified as “severe” (Tr. 40) but (B) did not cause limitations greater than those reflected in the RFC (see Tr. 41-42).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment that addresses relevant work functions and explains how the evidence supports the resulting limitations.

Hoyle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-07

The Court concludes the ALJ erred when determining Hoyle’s RFC because he did not sufficiently complete a function-by-function analysis of Hoyle’s mental impairments and provide the necessary narrative explanation.

Section 404.1545(b) does not require remand solely because an ALJ omits a separate discussion of each work-related function when the RFC narrative sufficiently addresses the evidence.

David v. Saul · filed 2022-03-29(b)

Those “functions” are set forth in the Social Security Administration’s regulations and include: “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping or crouching).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b). Although Plaintiff is correct that the ALJ did not specifically address each of these functions before concluding that he could perform light work, this error is not cause for reversal or remand.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC finding without an explicit function-by-function assessment when the ALJ considers all strength-demand limitations and substantial evidence supports the finding.

ASKANDER v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-31(a)(1)

The RFC "is the most [the Plaintiff] can still do despite [her] limitations." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... So if "the ALJ's discussion shows that the ALJ considered all strength-demand functional limitations in arriving a conclusion supported by substantial evidence," there is no reason to remand. ... The ALJ therefore did not commit error in the RFC finding that would require remand.

An RFC assessment considers supported exertional and nonexertional limitations on a function-by-function basis.

Baines v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-07(b)-(d)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ provided an appropriate “function-by-function” RFC assessment discussing all of Plaintiff’s exertional and non-exertional limitations supported by the record in accordance with the regulations and SSR 96-8p.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment based on relevant evidence of the claimant’s ability to perform work activities; medical reports assessing mobility and specific functions can satisfy that requirement.

Munoz, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-15

The ALJ’s determination in this case satisfies this standard because he based his decision in part on the medical reports of Drs. Hegde and Rowley,38 “which contain a general evaluation of [Munoz’s] mobility and a function- by-function analysis of the impact of [his] impairments on [his] ability to perform various tasks.”

An RFC assessment must explain the claimant’s ability to perform relevant functions well enough to permit meaningful review, particularly when the record contains conflicting evidence.

Salzer v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-23(a)

Here, in the absence of a function-by-function analysis of Claimant’s ability to sit, stand, and walk, the court cannot trace the ALJ’s reasoning in the RFC determination, and the error requires remand.

An RFC assessment need not expressly list every functional ability when the ALJ’s decision makes the claimant’s limitations clear enough for review.

Hart v. Saul · filed 2022-09-13(b)

Failure to make an explicit finding regarding a functional ability is not, by itself, a legal error requiring remand. ... The ALJ did not err in formulating the RFC by failing to list out every single function.

Section 404.1545 treats residual functional capacity as a function-by-function assessment of the claimant’s remaining abilities based on relevant evidence; an ALJ need not expressly articulate every itemized mental function when the RFC accounts for the assessed limitations.

Cartnal v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-21

The RFC is the most that an individual can still do despite his physical or mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945; SSR 96-8p. It represents a function-by-function assessment based upon all of the relevant evidence in the case record. Id. ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination is sufficiently consistent with the PRT assessment and that the ALJ did not err in failing to articulate an itemized functional assessment.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to address a claimant’s ability to perform contested work functions in light of relevant evidence.

Farmer v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-16(a)(1)

Accordingly, remand is required for the ALJ to perform a function-by-function assessment of Claimant’s ability to stand and walk in light of Claimant’s alleged need to elevate her legs to alleviate swelling in her lower extremities.

Section 404.1545 governs the assessment of a claimant’s ability to perform work activities on a sustained basis despite impairments; an assessment that addresses sitting, standing, and walking can satisfy the function-by-function requirement.

Kent v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-24

A claimant’s RFC is a function-by-function assessment of his or her ability to do physical and mental work-related activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; SSR 96–8p. ... Based upon a thorough review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ did not fail to engage in a function-by-function assessment of Petitioner’s capacity for sitting, standing, and walking, and that substantial evidence supports her finding.

An RFC assessment must consider the claimant’s functional limitations; an ALJ need not expressly list each function when the record makes the analysis clear.

LEVINSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-10-27(a)

Here, the record makes clear that the ALJ performed a function-by-function analysis and considered Plaintiff’s functional limitations.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s ability to sit when determining residual functional capacity and to explain the evidence supporting that assessment.

Fetters v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-12(b)

Pursuant to Social Security Ruling 96-8p, an ALJ’s RFC assessment must include an evaluation of the claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions.... [that] may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do past work and other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... In sum, the ALJ’s failure to explain how the record evidence supports her finding that Plaintiff can sit for eight hours during an eight-hour workday “frustrate[s] meaningful review” of the RFC assessment in this case.

An RFC assessment must evaluate work-related abilities function by function using the relevant evidence; a decision satisfies that requirement when it shows the ALJ performed the assessment.

Nelson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-01-31

Social Security Ruling 96-8p dictates that an 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 functions in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)” of 20 CFR §§ 404.1545 and 416.945. ... Based on this thorough discussion of the relevant evidence in the record, the court finds that the ALJ completed a function-by-function assessment of Nelson’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate how a claimant’s physical limitations affect functions such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling.

Durrant v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-03(b)

As Plaintiff notes, pursuant to Social Security Ruling 96-8p, an ALJ’s RFC assessment must include an evaluation of the claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions . . . . [that] may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do past work and other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... Thus, I do not find that the ALJ failed to provide the proper narrative discussion or function-by-function analysis in formulating the RFC.

An ALJ must assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity function by function and explain how the evidence supports the resulting limitations.

Adams v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-16(a)(1)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), an ALJ must devise an RFC that captures a claimant’s ability to do physical and/or mental work activities for a sustained period of time (i.e., sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy work), given the claimant’s limitations. ... In sum, because the ALJ failed to provide a proper function-by-function assessment and build an “accurate and logical bridge” between the evidence and his RFC assessment, this Court cannot find that his decision is supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ may rely on state agency consultants’ function-by-function analyses when assessing residual functional capacity.

Wheeler v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-06

In this case, the ALJ properly relied on the function-by-function analysis of the state agency consultants to satisfy his requirement of conducting a function-by-function analysis under SSR 96- 8p.

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of a claimant’s physical, mental, and other functional abilities in assessing residual functional capacity; the ALJ need not enumerate every function if the decision shows consideration of the claimant’s medical conditions as a whole.

Dancy v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-03-14(b), (c), (d)

Furthermore, Social Security Ruling 96-8p dictates that an RFC assessment must first determine the claimant’s functional limitations and then address the claimant’s ability to work on a function-by-function basis, pursuant to the functions described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945. ... The ALJ does not need to enumerate every piece of evidence or function used in his or her determination, but rather must simply portray that he or she considered the claimant’s medical conditions in totality. ... The ALJ performed such an analysis here, and he reached an RFC finding supported by the substantial evidence summarized in the previous section.

Section 404.1545’s physical, mental, and other work functions inform the function-by-function assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Hightshoe v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-03-16

Social Security Ruling 96-8p dictates that an RFC assessment must first determine the claimant’s functional limitations and then address the claimant’s ability to work on a function-by-function basis, pursuant to the functions described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945. ... The court finds that the ALJ’s analysis in this case satisfied the requirements of SSR 96-8p.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate physical functions, including pushing and pulling; failure to address significant limitations in those functions can require remand.

Adams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-24(b)

Pursuant to Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, an ALJ’s RFC assessment must include an evaluation of the claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b) and 416.945(b), including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions” that “may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do past work and other work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b) and 416.945(b); see SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996). ... The ALJ’s failure to evaluate Plaintiff’s limitation in bending, twisting, pushing, and pulling warrants remand.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess what a claimant can still do despite impairments and explain how the evidence supports the RFC.

Robbins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-29(a)(1)

Thus, the ALJ performed a proper function-by-function analysis, in accordance with the requirements established under Mascio, because he examined all available evidence regarding Claimant’s knee impairments and engaged in a detailed explanation of how each finding was considered and represented in his RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(b)–(d) identifies the physical, mental, and other work-related abilities the ALJ must assess when determining residual functional capacity.

Burton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(b)–(d)

These include: (1) the claimant’s physical abilities, “such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping or crouching)”; (2) the claimant’s mental abilities, “such as limitations in understanding, remembering, and carrying out instructions, and in responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and work pressures in a work setting”; and (3) other work-related abilities affected by impairments, “such as skin impairment(s), epilepsy, impairment(s) of vision, hearing or other senses, and impairment(s) which impose environmental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b)–(d); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.945. ... Such a conclusion, without first conducting a function-by-function analysis, “frustrates meaningful review” such that remand is necessary.

An ALJ’s failure to provide an explicit function-by-function residual functional capacity analysis does not require remand when the omission does not prevent meaningful review.

Scharbrough v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2023-06-09

A claimant’s RFC represents “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... As such, the lack of an explicit function-by-function analysis does not warrant remand here.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ to assess relevant physical functions, including a claimant’s ability to sit, when determining residual functional capacity.

Carter v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-15(b)

While this symptom-based assessment allowed the ALJ to ostensibly reach a conclusion regarding some of the functions under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), such as stooping and crouching, the ALJ failed to conduct a proper function-by-function analysis of these functions and others (specifically, the sitting function) listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

An ALJ’s failure to perform an explicit function-by-function RFC analysis does not require remand when the decision permits meaningful review and substantial evidence supports the RFC.

Owens v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2023-07-13

As such, the lack of an explicit function-by-function analysis does not warrant remand here. Moreover, a careful review of the ALJ’s decision makes clear that the ALJ supported the RFC determination with substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate physical functions, including lifting and carrying, and explain how the evidence supports the resulting limitations.

Barton v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-17(b)

Pursuant to Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, an ALJ’s RFC assessment must include an evaluation of the claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b) and 416.945(b), which include “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions” that may reduce [a claimant’s] “ability to do past work and other work.” ... Because of these omissions, the ALJ’s decision lacks a “logical bridge” linking record evidence to the RFC limitations regarding Plaintiff’s carrying and lifting abilities. ... Remand is therefore warranted.

Section 404.1545(b) does not require remand for omitted explicit function-by-function findings when the ALJ thoroughly examines the claimant’s relevant physical limitations and substantial evidence supports the RFC.

Pope v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-28(b)

Accordingly, because the ALJ’s decision was “[b]ased on a thorough examination of the evidence of [Plaintiff’s] relevant limitations and restrictions,” it was supported by substantial evidence, and the lack of function-by-function findings does not constitute a basis for remand.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to address relevant physical functions and explain the rejection of evidence supporting a fingering limitation.

Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-19(b)

Pursuant to Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8P, an RFC assessment must address a claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b), including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions” that “may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do . . . work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b); see SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996). ... The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ’s rejection of the fingering limitation suggested by Drs. Totoonchie and Pio Roda amounted to error.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s work-related abilities by function before expressing residual functional capacity as an exertional level; failure to assess relevant functions despite contrary evidence can warrant remand.

Thompson v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-05

It is well-settled that before determining a claimant’s RFC based on exertional levels (sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy), the ALJ “must first identify the individual’s functional limitations or restrictions and assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis.” Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir. 2013) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... Here, the ALJ failed to assess Plaintiff’s capacity to perform relevant functions, despite contrary evidence in the record (including several assessments from his long-term treating orthopedic surgeon), and with inadequacies in his analysis, as outlined above, that frustrate meaningful review. A remand is appropriate.

Section 404.1545(b) concerns assessment of physical work abilities; an ALJ’s failure to give an explicit function-by-function analysis does not require remand when the RFC explanation permits meaningful review.

Snider v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-04(b)

The court finds that the AL] adequately explained how he assessed Debra’s ability to perform relevant functions and why he found she could do light work with additional postural limitations. The AL]’s explanation of his determination is clear and supported by the record, and the court is not left to guess at how the ALJ arrived at the RFC. Accordingly, the fact that the ALJ did not provide a function-by-function analysis of Debra’s work-related abilities does not wattant remand in this case.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations; the assessment must address material limits on sitting, standing, and walking.

Davis-Bissing v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-08(a)(1)

But, the ALJ never explained how she had evaluated—or whether she had evaluated—Plaintiff’s symptoms as to walking, sitting, and standing and the related medical evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires assessment of physical work abilities; an ALJ may implicitly find no limitation in sitting, standing, or walking when the RFC and record show those functions were considered.

Thompson v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-12(b)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ implicitly found no limitation in Plaintiff’s ability to sit, stand, and walk, within the confines of sedentary work.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to address relevant functional limitations, but does not require an explicit analysis of every function when the ALJ has addressed all relevant limitations.

Lombardozzi v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-14(b)–(d)

Thus, the ALJ addressed all of Lombardozzi’s relevant limitations under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b)–(d), 416.945(b)–(d). As a result, the ALJ did not commit legal error by failing to conduct a function-by-function analysis.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate physical work functions, but an omitted explicit function-by-function analysis is harmless when a fuller analysis would not change the result.

Mitchell v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-13(b)

Accordingly, any failure by the ALJ to perform a function-by-function analysis, where, as here, there is no evidence that a more robust analysis would lead to a different result, constitutes harmless error.

Section 404.1545(b) requires consideration of a claimant’s physical strength abilities when assessing residual functional capacity; failure to state each ability explicitly is harmless when the ALJ considers the limitations and the court can follow the reasoning.

Swanson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-25(b)

The ALJ must consider the claimant’s “limitations and restrictions of physical strength” and define the claimant’s “remaining abilities to perform each of the seven strength demands: [s]itting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling.” Id. at *5; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... Because the ALJ did not overlook any limitations or restrictions that would narrow the type of work Plaintiff can do, and because the undersigned can otherwise follow the ALJ’s reasoning to determine Plaintiff’s limitations in sitting, lifting, and carrying, any failure to define Plaintiff’s RFC using every single strength demand was, at most, harmless error.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s work-related functions before assigning an RFC exertional level; failure to do so can require remand when the record contains contrary evidence.

Hill v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-03

Lastly, the Court finds that this is a case where the ALJ’s failure to perform a function-by-function assessment of Plaintiff’s ability to meet several of the key demands of light work (e.g., sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying) constitutes error requiring remand.

An RFC assessment need not separately enumerate each work-related function when a thorough narrative explains how the evidence supports its conclusions.

Venzon v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-21

For that reason, the Court also determines that the ALJ did not err by not specifically addressing the “functions” set forth the in the SSA’s regulations. ... Since the ALJ provided a thorough narrative discussion, no function-by-function enumeration was required.

An ALJ’s failure to assess exertional abilities function by function does not require remand when the residual functional capacity assessment permits meaningful review and no unresolved evidentiary conflict exists.

Edler v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-06-06

Therefore, the ALJ’s failure to explicitly assess Plaintiff’s exertional abilities does not warrant remand.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess work-related functions and explain how the evidence supports the RFC limitations; an inadequate explanation can require remand when it prevents meaningful review.

Pryor v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-06-26

Because the ALJ’s analysis lacks the logical bridge between the claimant’s symptoms and limitations that the function-by-function assessment provides, the Court cannot find that the RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires a function-by-function assessment of physical abilities affected by a claimant’s impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-14(b)

The Magistrate Judge noted, in particular, the ALJ’s failure to perform a proper function by function ... analysis required under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) regarding Plaintiff’s upper extremities impairments. ... The Court adopts the R & R as the order of the Court and reverses and remands the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review consistent with this order.

An RFC assessment must consider all physical and mental impairments and explain how they affect the claimant’s ability to work on a function-by-function basis.

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

When assessing an RFC, the ALJ must consider all “physical and mental impairments, severe and otherwise, and determine, on a function-by-function basis, how they affect [the claimant’s] ability to work.” Thomas, 916 F.3d at 311 (internal quotations omitted). ... The ALJ sufficiently performed a function-by-function analysis of Plaintiff’s ocular headaches.

Section 404.1545(b) requires assessment of relevant physical functions, including sitting, before an ALJ assigns an exertional residual functional capacity.

Nina v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-15(b)

It is well-settled that before determining a claimant’s RFC based on exertional levels (sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy), the ALJ “must first identify the individual’s functional limitations or restrictions and assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis.” Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir. 2013) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... Here, the ALJ failed to explicitly assess Plaintiff’s capacity to sit for prolonged periods despite evidence in the record (including assessments from two treating physicians) that she could not meet the sitting demands of sedentary work. A remand is, therefore, necessary.

Section 404.1545(b) identifies sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling as physical functions to assess when determining residual functional capacity.

Ybarra v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-23(b)

The referenced regulations identify several physical functions including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, [and] pulling.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). ... SSR 96-8p specifically requires a function-by-function analysis before stating the overall level (sedentary or light, for example) of work of which the claimant is capable. ... In short, the ALJ erred in finding the RFC, which infects the later steps, and the Commissioner has not met its burden of proof on step five.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess work-related abilities function by function before assigning an exertional residual functional capacity; failure to assess relevant functions may require remand when conflicting evidence prevents meaningful review.

Edwards v. O'Malley · filed 2024-11-25

Before determining a claimant’s RFC based on exertional levels (sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy), the ALJ “must first identify the individual’s functional limitations or restrictions and assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis.” Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir. 2013) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... In sum, the ALJ failed to assess Plaintiff’s capacity to perform relevant work-related functions, despite contrary evidence in the record (including the assessments from the treating and examining providers), and with inadequacies in his analysis, as outlined above, that frustrate meaningful review. A remand, therefore, is required.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s remaining work-related abilities through an appropriate analysis of relevant functions.

Knight v. Colvin · filed 2024-12-27

Because the ALJ did not employ the appropriate legal framework and engage in the required function-by-function analysis, the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ’s failure to provide an explicit function-by-function RFC assessment does not require remand when the ALJ thoroughly reviews the record and substantial evidence supports the decision.

Perez v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-30

Although the ALJ here did not provide an explicit function-by-function assessment, the Court concludes that a remand is not warranted. ... Although the ALJ’s decision lacks an explicit function-by-function assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC, courts in this Circuit have found that the absence of such an assessment does not warrant remand where, as here, the record demonstrates that the ALJ performed a thorough review and reached a decision supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b)-(d) addresses physical, mental, and other work-related abilities in assessing residual functional capacity; an explicit function-by-function assessment is unnecessary when a thorough analysis is supported by substantial evidence.

Page v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-14(b)-(d)

The lack of an explicit function-by-function assessment does not require remand where, as here, the ALJ performed a thorough review and reached a decision supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s ability to perform physical functions, including sitting, standing, and walking, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-03-06(b)

An RFC assessment must include an evaluation of a claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b) and 416.945(b), including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions” that “may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do . . . work.” ... Relevant to Plaintiff’s “less-than-sedentary RFC” suggestion, the ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s ability to stand, walk, and sit during the workday.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to evaluate physical functions such as sitting, standing, and walking; an evidence-based explanation can support the resulting work capacity.

Chitwood v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-03-06(b)

An RFC assessment must include an evaluation of a claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b) and 416.945(b), including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions” that “may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do . . . work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b); see Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996). ... The ALJ articulated a logical explanation of how this evidence, Plaintiff’s testimony, and the opinions of medical professionals led to their conclusion that Plaintiff can perform light work with certain physical and environmental limitations.

Section 404.1545(b) calls for assessing a claimant’s physical functions when determining residual functional capacity, but failure to discuss every function explicitly does not alone require remand.

Fetters v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-28(b)

However, any failure to explicitly examine each function of the FBF analysis does not, on its own, warrant remand.

An ALJ’s omission of a separate function-by-function assessment does not require remand when substantial evidence supports the RFC determination.

Marrero v. O'Malley · filed 2025-08-20

Accordingly, the absence of a specific function-by-function assessment in this case does not require remand, where we have concluded that the ALJ’s RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s relevant work-related physical functions before assigning an exertional residual functional capacity.

Torres v. King · filed 2025-08-27(b)

Lastly, the ALJ erred in determining that Plaintiff could perform a range of light work without assessing his work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis. It is well-settled that before determining a claimant’s RFC based on exertional levels (sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy), the ALJ “must first identify the individual’s functional limitations or restrictions and assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis.” Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir. 2013) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to consider physical functions, but an ALJ’s failure to analyze each function explicitly does not automatically require remand.

Weinberg v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-16(b)

It is true that the ALJ did not conduct a function-by-function analysis of Plaintiff’s exertional capabilities. However, the failure to include such an analysis is not dispositive.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate a claimant’s physical work functions before stating the work the claimant can perform.

Cosby v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-26(b)

An RFC assessment must include an evaluation of a claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b) and 416.945(b), including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions” that “may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do . . . work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b); see Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996). ... The ALJ described the RFC while engaging in a narrative discussion of Plaintiff’s medical evidence and cited to specific evidence in the record. Tr. 23-28. The ALJ offered a logical explanation of how this evidence, along with Plaintiff’s testimony, and the opinions of medical professionals, led to the conclusion that Plaintiff can perform a full range of work at all exertional levels.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s relevant work functions when determining residual functional capacity; failure to do so can require remand.

Lombardo · filed 2025-10-22

In this case, although Plaintiff did not raise a function-by-function assessment argument in his motion, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision fails to include such an assessment in evaluating Plaintiff’s RFC. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the case to the SSA for a proper function-by-function assessment.

An RFC may stand without an explicit function-by-function analysis of sitting when the court can trace the ALJ’s reasoning and substantial evidence supports the finding.

Collins · filed 2025-12-03

Accordingly, the court can trace the ALJ’s reasoning despite the lack of a function-by function analysis of Claimant’s ability to sit and finds no error in the RFC in this regard.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to assess every listed physical and mental ability function by function when substantial evidence supports the RFC determination.

JORDAN · filed 2026-02-06(b)-(d)

First, the ALJ was not required to perform a “function-by-function” assessment of every physical and mental ability listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b)-(d), as set forth in McEaney.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s physical and mental impairments when assessing how they affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Colvin · filed 2026-03-02(a)(2)

To fashion an RFC, an ALJ must “consider all of the claimant’s ‘physical and mental impairments, severe and otherwise, and determine, on a function-by-function basis, how they affect [his] ability to work.’” Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Monroe, 826 F.3d at 188); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2); SSR 96-8p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,474, 34,475 (July 2, 1996). ... However, the ALJ did not make any explicit findings about Plaintiff’s ability to “sit, stand, walk, lift, carry,” or discuss whether his abilities in this regard impacted his ability to work. (Tr. 24, 25). Per Dowling, I find that this constitutes error.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment to address the claimant’s ability to sustain work activities, including a relevant sitting limitation.

Santana · filed 2026-03-02(a)(1)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1) and 416.945(a)(1), an ALJ must devise an RFC that captures a claimant’s ability to do physical and/or mental work activities for a sustained period of time (i.e., sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy work), given the claimant’s limitations. ... In sum, because the ALJ failed to build an “accurate and logical bridge” between the evidence and her RFC assessment, this Court cannot find that her decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ to assess relevant physical work functions, including walking, standing, and sitting, when determining residual functional capacity.

Franklin · filed 2026-03-19(b)

Here, like in Dowling, the ALJ failed to conduct a function-by-function analysis of Plaintiff’s ability to perform work-related activities, particularly walking, standing, and sitting.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess how a claimant’s impairments affect each relevant work function and explain how the evidence supports the resulting residual functional capacity.

Batres · filed 2026-03-23(a)(2)

To fashion an RFC, an ALJ must “consider all of the claimant’s ‘physical and mental impairments, severe and otherwise, and determine, on a function-by-function basis, how they affect [his] ability to work.’” Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Monroe, 826 F.3d at 188); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2); SSR 96-8p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,474, 34,475 (July 2, 1996). ... In sum, because the ALJ failed to build an “accurate and logical bridge” between the evidence and his RFC assessment, this Court cannot find that his decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to address physical functions; an omitted explicit function-by-function analysis does not require remand unless it prevents meaningful review.

Holbrook v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-18(b)

Although the ALJ did not perform a function-by-function analysis of Plaintiff’s ability to sit, stand, walk, lift, and carry, such an omission does not warrant remand unless “inadequacies in the ALJ’s analysis frustrate meaningful review.” Audlica D. v. Kijakazi, No. BAH-22-1046, 2023 WL 1769665, at *5 (D. Md. Feb. 3, 2023) (quoting Mascio, 780 F.3d at 636).

Section 404.1545(b) requires assessment of a claimant’s work-related physical abilities function by function, including possible manipulative limitations.

Larry v. Apfel · filed 1999-06-11(b)

The ALJ is also required to assess the claimant’s “work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis.” Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b)); see also Social Security Ruling 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at *2.

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

Tuohy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-04-01(a)(1)

These findings show that the ALJ undertook an individualized review of all relevant evidence and engaged in a function-by-function assessment of Tuohy’s work capacity.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment that addresses functions for which the record shows limitations.

Hartline v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-31

The Court finds that the ALJ performed a sufficient function-by-function assessment of all functions for which the record included evidence of limitations.

An RFC assessment addresses physical, mental, and other work-related abilities, but need not include alleged limitations the ALJ reasonably discounted.

Beard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-14(b)-(d)

SSR 96-8p requires that the “RFC assessment must first identify the [claimant’s] functional limitations or restrictions and assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis,” specifically the physical, mental, and other abilities affected by a claimant’s impairments. 1996 WL 374184 at *1 (referencing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b)-(d), 416.945(b)-(d)). ... Plaintiff has not shown that the ALJ harmfully erred in discounting his alleged walking and sitting limitations, or his need for a cane, and thus has not shown that the ALJ erred in failing to account for these allegations when crafting the RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545(b) calls for an assessment of physical work-related abilities, but an ALJ’s failure to discuss every ability expressly does not mean the ALJ failed to consider it.

Carneal v. Saul · filed 2022-07-15(b)

See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) (instructing that the RFC should identify limitations on a function-by-function basis). ... However, the fact that the ALJ omitted a discussion of functional abilities does not mean she did not consider them.

Section 404.1545 identifies the physical, mental, and other work-related abilities an ALJ must assess function by function when determining residual functional capacity.

Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(b)-(d)

The absence of a medical source statement made it impossible for the ALJ to make the function-by-function assessment of plaintiff’s work-related abilities as required by Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p. ... These functions include physical abilities such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions; mental abilities such as understanding, remembering, carrying out instructions, and responding appropriately to supervision; and other abilities that may be affected by impairments, such as seeing, hearing, and the ability to tolerate environmental factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... In this case, the ALJ’s decision did not contain a function-by-function assessment.

Section 404.1545 requires an assessment of relevant physical functions when determining residual functional capacity; an unexplained assessment that prevents meaningful review can require remand.

Cole v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-27(b)

Here, the absence of a function-by-function analysis highlights and adds to the uncertainty regarding how the ALJ reached her RFC determination which does not enable that meaningful review.

An RFC assessment draws on all relevant evidence, so it need not mirror a particular medical opinion.

Grover · filed 2026-03-31(a)(3)

Therefore, an RFC need not mirror a particular opinion, as it is an assessment formulated by the ALJ based on all relevant evidence.

When assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider the functional limitations in a persuasive medical opinion and explain any limitation the ALJ does not adopt.

Bisignano · filed 2026-03-25

On remand, the ALJ should consider all of the functional limitations in Dr. Costley’s opinion and should either incorporate these limitations into the RFC or explain why he did not adopt a particular limitation.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider the functional limitations in a persuasive medical opinion and explain why any are excluded.

Eberley · filed 2026-04-01(a)(3)

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

An ALJ assesses residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence and need not find a medical opinion persuasive to make that assessment.

Van Wagoner v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-26(a)(3)

When assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ is required to consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”34 ... Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ “constructed the RFC out of whole cloth”44 because the ALJ did not find any medical opinions persuasive falls squarely within the foregoing category of arguments the Tenth Circuit and this court has rejected.

Residual functional capacity must account for relevant record evidence, and an ALJ must explain why a conflicting medical opinion was not adopted.

Rawleigh v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-18(a)(1)

Given that the RFC conflicted with Dr. Loomis’s opinion, the ALJ was required to explain why he rejected the limitation to “simple one to two step (unskilled) tasks.”

An RFC need not incorporate limitations from a medical opinion the ALJ expressly rejected.

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

Again, the ALJ was not required to incorporate an opinion into the RFC that was expressly rejected.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; an opinion that does not specify the claimant’s functional limits may be discounted as vague.

Petosa v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-02(a)(1)

The ALJ is tasked with determining Plaintiff’s RFC, which is the most he can do, and Dr. Welch’s opinion lacks specificity as to the most standing, sitting, or walking that Plaintiff can perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1) (RFC “is the most you can still do despite your limitations”). Given this lack of specificity, the ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Welch’s opinion as vague.

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity with greater limitations than a medical opinion identifies, including a sit/stand option based on the claimant’s testimony.

Wakefield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-11

In sum, based upon the record in this case, I find that remand is not warranted on the grounds that the ALJ included greater limitations in her RFC determination than those opined by Miller or assessed a sit/stand option based upon Wakefield’s own testimony.

An ALJ may give a medical opinion less than controlling weight while incorporating its limitations into the residual functional capacity assessment.

Mathews v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-29

Indeed, an ALJ does not necessarily “reject” opinion evidence when the opinion is assessed less than controlling weight and where, as here, the ALJ’s RFC determination incorporates limitations contained in that opinion.

An ALJ does not reject medical opinion evidence merely by giving it less than controlling weight when the residual functional capacity assessment incorporates the opinion’s limitations.

Larson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-25

Simply because the ALJ did not assign controlling weight to any opinion does not mean that she “rejected” the medical opinion evidence in the record. Indeed, an ALJ does not necessarily “reject” opinion evidence by according it less than controlling weight and where, as here, the ALJ’s RFC determination incorporates limitations contained in that opinion.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence; material conflicts about a claimant’s work capacity must be resolved.

Moore v. Saul · filed 2021-01-13(a)(3)

Because the record contains inconsistencies regarding Plaintiff’s ability to perform work at the medium exertional level, which bear directly on the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff can perform his past relevant work, the court remands the case to the Commissioner for reevaulation of the medical opinions and Plaintiff’s RFC.

An ALJ need not obtain a medical expert’s opinion every time the ALJ reviews new medical evidence to determine residual functional capacity.

Bufkin v. Saul · filed 2021-02-12

ALJs need not seek the opinion of a medical expert every time they review new medical evidence and make a RFC determination. See Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (determining RFC “is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the claimant’s physician”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence; the ALJ need not adopt a particular medical opinion.

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

However, the regulations make clear that an ALJ is responsible for assessing a claimant’s RFC, 20 C.F.R. §§ 1546(c) and 416.946(c), and must do so “based on all the relevant evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). Accordingly, an ALJ need not adopt a particular medical opinion when formulating a claimant’s RFC.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity may give a medical opinion great weight without adopting every limitation in it.

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-22(a)(1)

Although the ALJ gave great weight to Dr. Rolón’s overall opinion, he was not required to adopt the entirety of his testimony.

An ALJ must explain an RFC assessment that conflicts with medical opinions the ALJ gave great weight.

Winters v. Saul · filed 2021-03-15

Guided by these legal tenets, we find in this case that the ALJ’s decision fails the articulation and internal consistency tests mandated by the courts. Rather, unexplained inconsistencies abound in this decision. For example, there are patent inconsistencies between the ALJ’s weighing of the opinion evidence and the RFC that was crafted in this case.

An RFC assessment must consider relevant medical source opinions and explain why it omits limitations from an opinion the ALJ credits.

Daniels v. Saul · filed 2021-03-18(a)(3)

It “must be based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record,” including “[m]edical history,” “[m]edical signs and laboratory findings,” “[l]ay evidence,” and—as relevant here—“[m]edical source statements.” Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (defining the types of evidence that may be used to compute an RFC). ... The Defendant’s conclusion may very well be true, but the ALJ still committed legal error when she failed to “explain why [Dr. Feke’s] opinion was not adopted.” SSR 96-8p.

Section 404.1545 allows an ALJ to resolve conflicting evidence when determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Heggood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-15

The ALJ’s function is to resolve conflicts in the evidence. ... That is what the ALJ did in this case when she concluded that plaintiff “needs to elevate her legs at knee height twice per eight-hour workday for approximately 20 minutes at a time.”

An RFC assessment may rely on an earlier medical opinion when later evidence does not show greater functional limitations that undermine it.

Baxley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-28

Thus, in the absence of any evidence showing greater functional limitations related to plaintiff’s spinal pain than those opined by Dr. Schwab and reflected in the RFC, no basis exists on this record to conclude that Dr. Schwab’s opinion was stale.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must address a medical source’s reaching limitation by incorporating it, rejecting it, or explaining how the assessment accounts for it.

Haidary v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-16

Under such circumstances, the ALJ’s failure to address the reaching limitation assessed by Liu by explicitly incorporating it into the RFC, explicitly rejecting it, or otherwise explaining how the RFC nevertheless accounted for it was error requiring remand.

Section 404.1545 allows an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the record as a whole without adopting every part of one medical source’s opinion.

Delage v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-07

Further, in formulating a plaintiff’s RFC, an ALJ does not have to adhere to the entirety of one medical source’s opinion.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ who credits a medical opinion to fairly translate its functional limitations into the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-24

It follows from these rules that when an ALJ credits the opinions of a medical source the ALJ must fairly and adequately translate that doctor’s findings into the RFC. ... Because the ALJ did not provide any explanation for these noticeable discrepancies between the RFC and Dr. Gardner’s opinion, the ALJ’s decision cannot stand.

An ALJ may omit proposed limitations from an RFC assessment when the ALJ adequately explains why they were rejected.

Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(a)

The ALJ thoroughly explained the reasoning underlying the weight afforded to these medical opinions and why he rejected the limitations at issue.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the relevant evidence and permits an assessment between conflicting medical opinions.

JEWELL V. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-28

However, the ALJ has not only the right but the duty to analyze the relevant evidence to develop an appropriate RFC assessment. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545; and see Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 42 (3d Cir. 2001) (an ALJ must consider and evaluate the medical evidence in the record). Because the ALJ had before him Dr. Bermudez’s opinion that Jewell had no manipulative limitations at all, and Dr. Frey’s report that Jewell could do only work “that did not require use of her right hand,” he was empowered to reach a conclusion which lay somewhere between those two assessments without using impermissible speculation.

An RFC assessment need not repeat the medical opinions the ALJ considers verbatim.

Lucas v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-30

But there is no requirement that the ALJ’s RFC assessment track verbatim the medical opinions the ALJ considers.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant medical and other evidence; an ALJ may consider a medical opinion without adopting it in full.

Gorbet v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-09-30(a)

The record reflects that the ALJ considered Dr. Jordan’s opinion fully but did not adopt that opinion in its entirety, as the ALJ also considered other evidence in the record. Accordingly, based upon a review of the record as a whole, the court concludes that the ALJ properly considered the entire record in determining Plaintiff’s RFC, including Dr. Jordan’s opinion and other evidence in the record, and that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the record as a whole; the assessment need not mirror a medical opinion.

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

To require an RFC to mirror a medical opinion would conflict with an ALJ’s duties and circumvent regulations that the RFC is an administrative finding and not a medical finding. See 20 CFR §404.1545.

An ALJ need not obtain an updated medical opinion to assess residual functional capacity when the record otherwise supports the assessment.

Akins v. Saul · filed 2021-09-30

The Court further finds that the ALJ was under no obligation to expand the record with an updated medical opinion regarding Plaintiff’s capabilities.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider opinion evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Teel v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-18(a)(3)

When assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... The ALJ’s failure to evaluate the persuasiveness of Dr. Mackie’s opinion was error.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider relevant medical evidence, including significant evidence that may affect the assessment.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-29(a)(3)

It is possible that the ALJ may find that these were isolated events that would not impact the Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity; however, the fact that Plaintiff was hospitalized twice within months of each other for a possible suicide attempt and suicidal ideation cannot go without mention for there to be a logical bridge to that conclusion.

An RFC need not incorporate a medical opinion that describes an impairment without identifying a specific functional limitation.

Sliger v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-10-19(a)(1)

These vague statements do not constitute a “specific functional limitation,” and therefore, the ALJ’s RFC determination was not in conflict with Dr. Martin’s opinion.

An RFC assessment does not require a medical opinion when the record contains enough evidence to assess the claimant’s functional capacity.

Weber v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-14(a)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, an ALJ’s RFC determination is not fatally flawed merely because it was formulated absent a medical opinion. The Second Circuit has held that where, “the record contains sufficient evidence from which an ALJ can assess the [plaintiff’s] residual functional capacity, a medical source statement or formal medical opinion is not necessarily required.” Monroe v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 676 F. App'x 5, 8 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must rely on an expert medical opinion about the claimant’s functional abilities rather than interpret bare medical findings independently.

LaChance v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-16(a)(3)

The RFC is assessed “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a)(3). ... An ALJ, in sum, must rely on some expert medical opinion in the record, as to a claimant’s functional abilities, to formulate the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including a medical opinion about work-related limitations.

O'Brien v. Saul · filed 2022-01-11(a)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all of the relevant evidence in the record. ... Because the ALJ did not offer any specific explanation as to why he implicitly rejected some of Dr. Ramsey’s findings, the ALJ’s RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity cannot rely on medical opinions that predate significant evidence of worsening symptoms without obtaining medical review of the new evidence.

King v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-21

The ALJ erred in relying on outdated medical source statements when new medical evidence showed new treatments and new imagining indicating a worsening of symptoms, requiring remand.

An ALJ may give a medical opinion less than controlling weight if the RFC accounts for its assessed limitations and rests on record evidence rather than the ALJ’s lay interpretation.

Hartzell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-31(a)

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

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

Lott v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-02-07(a)(1)

Therefore, an ALJ’s determination concerning a claimant’s RFC must be supported by medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace. Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2003). ... After reviewing the record, the undersigned is troubled by the fact that no examining or non-examining medical professional opined as to Plaintiff’s capabilities to perform in the workplace subsequent to the start of her seizure activity in February of 2020. ... After reviewing the record as a whole, the Court finds remand necessary so that the ALJ can more fully and fairly develop the record regarding Plaintiff’s seizure impairment.

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity without a medical opinion specifying work-related limitations when the record contains sufficient evidence.

Joyner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-14(a)(3)

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

An ALJ may weigh conflicting medical opinions to make an RFC finding consistent with the overall record.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-22(a)

In doing so, the ALJ appropriately evaluated the conflicting medical evidence, and made an RFC finding consistent with the overall record.

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity from sufficient record evidence without matching any one medical opinion exactly.

Pearson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-16

Because the record contained sufficient evidence from which the ALJ could assess Plaintiff’s RFC, the RFC did not need to perfectly correspond with any one particular medical opinion.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ may resolve conflicting medical opinions when the resulting assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

Osei-Danquah v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-23

Thus, in formulating plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ resolved the conflicting medical opinions in the record, which he was permitted to do.

Section 404.1545(a) permits a residual functional capacity assessment to draw from multiple medical opinions without adopting any one opinion wholesale.

Good v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-03-28(a)

The RFC determination sets out an individual's work-related abilities despite their limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... Here, the ALJ made an RFC determination that reflected some influence from both Dr. Gupta and Dr. Blaine. The ALJ was not required to wholly adopt one or the other, nor was he required to make the RFC look more like one opinion or the other.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to address every limitation assessed by a medical source, even when the ALJ finds that source persuasive.

Wood v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-01

Contrary to plaintiff’s suggestion, however, there is no requirement that the ALJ address all limitations assessed by a medical source, even if the source is found to be persuasive.

Section 404.1545(a) permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the evidence as a whole without adopting one medical opinion in full.

Felt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-12(a)

As an initial matter, “there is no requirement that the ALJ pick one RFC [opinion] and use that particular evaluation in its entirety.”

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity need not adopt every finding of a state agency medical consultant.

Wolynski v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-13(a)(1)

The Court agrees with the Commissioner that there is no requirement that an ALJ adopt all of the findings or language of the state agency medical consultant, “even if the opinion is given substantial weight.”

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider relevant medical evidence and explain why a limitation in a credited medical opinion was omitted.

(SS) Corrales v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2022-06-24(a)(3)

An ALJ will assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... The Court finds that the ALJ erred in failing to address or account for Plaintiff’s moderate limitation as opined by Dr. Duong, to whom the ALJ accorded great weight.

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions, and an unexplained rejection of an opinion requiring periodic changes between sitting and standing can warrant remand.

Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-01(a)(3)

In determining a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including the medical opinions of treating, examining, and non-examining medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see also Rosario v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 490 F. App’x 192, 194 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). ... Thus, contrary to the Commissioner’s argument (Doc. No. 22 at 14, 16-17), the ALJ’s failure to explain why she rejected Dr. Bell’s opinion that Claimant needed to alternate periodically between sitting and standing is not harmless.

An ALJ formulates residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence; the assessment need not mirror any particular medical opinion.

(SS) Duron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-03(a)(3)

The RFC need not mirror any particular opinion in whole or in part, it is an assessment formulated by the ALJ based on all relevant evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) does not require an ALJ to rely exclusively on medical opinions, or on any one medical opinion, when determining residual functional capacity.

Caldwell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-31(a)(3)

The regulations, as well as longstanding precedent, make clear that an ALJ is not required to rely exclusively on medical opinions, or on any one medical opinion, when creating an RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7.

An RFC assessment need not reproduce a consultant’s qualified restrictions verbatim when the ALJ accounts for them through other limitations.

Terrell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-07(a)

The ALJ did not err by electing not to include these verbatim restrictions in the RFC, instead including that Plaintiff should have “occasional interaction with . . . supervisors” and “occasional changes in the work setting.”

An ALJ may assess a more restrictive residual functional capacity than a medical opinion suggests; that difference alone does not make the assessment unsupported by substantial evidence.

Samsel v. Saul · filed 2022-09-09(a)(3)

Again, a more restrictive RFC is not found unsupported by substantial evidence merely because it does not comply with a medical opinion in all respects.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity need not include every limitation in a medical opinion when substantial evidence supports the assessment.

Drudge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-19(a)(3)

There is no requirement that the ALJ’s RFC must include every limitation stated in a medical opinion. Even though the ALJ found the state agency psychologist opinions persuasive, she did not adopt them in whole and properly supported her decision not to with substantial evidence.

Mild limitations under the paragraph B criteria do not, by themselves, require an ALJ to include mental limitations in the residual functional capacity.

Chestang v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20

To the contrary, the persuasive precedent demonstrates that ALJs are not obligated to include mental limitations in the RFC even when they find “mild” limitations while completing a PRTF.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the record without a medical opinion when the evidence is sufficient.

Isherwood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-12(a)(1)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, a medical opinion or administrative finding is not required to provide substantial evidence to support an RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions in the record when determining residual functional capacity.

Wilmore v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-14(a)(3)

An ALJ considers medical opinions in the record as part of determining a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

An RFC assessment need not match a specific medical opinion if its limitations are consistent with the medical opinions considered.

Seifert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-17

Accordingly, the ALJ’s RFC finding need not directly correspond to a specific medical opinion but may incorporate the opinions by assessing limitations entirely consistent with, even if not identical to, limitations assessed by the physician.

An RFC assessment need not match a physician’s recommended limitations when substantial evidence supports the assessment.

Wasson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-25

An ALJ’s RFC determination need not specifically match a physician’s recommended limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant evidence; the assessment need not mirror a particular medical opinion.

(SS) Verreault v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-29(a)(3)

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).

An RFC assessment need not mirror a particular medical opinion.

(SS) Hanson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-09(a)(3)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s suggestion, a determination of residual functional capacity is not a medical opinion and need not mirror any medical opinion, rather it is a legal decision reserved for the Commissioner.

An ALJ must account for functional limitations in a persuasive medical opinion when determining residual functional capacity, or explain why they were excluded.

Wilson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-18

Upon remand, the ALJ must consider all functional limitations set forth in Dr. Cunningham’s opinion, and either include those limitations in the RFC or explain why limitations were not included in the RFC.

An RFC need not repeat every medical finding if it generally captures the limitations in the medical opinion.

Mayo v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-08(a)

The RFC need not quote every finding, so long as it generally captures the limitations in the medical opinion.