20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider medical evidence and the claimant’s reported activities when assessing residual functional capacity.

Dzikowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-13(a)

The ALJ met his obligations to review the full scope of record evidence by considering treatment records from Plaintiff’s primary care physician and orthopedist along with Plaintiff’s description of her daily activities.

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

Carey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-09-14(a)(4)

As previously discussed, at step four of the sequential analysis the ALJ formulates a claimant’s RFC by assessing his or her “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(4), 416.945(a)(4). ... Thus, the ALJ satisfied the requirements to assess Carey’s functional limitations, determine her ability to work on a function-by-function basis, and characterize her exertional abilities.

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

Lawson v. Saul · filed 2022-09-14(a)(3)

Ultimately, the claimant is responsible for providing evidence relating to his RFC and the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history. . . .” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3).

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

Marsh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-14(a)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including a claimant’s subjective complaints. Id. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Accordingly, because neither the medical opinions nor record documents support the ALJ’s determination that Sara can “regularly attend to a routine and maintain a schedule,” and in many instances, contradict it, (Tr. at 99, 301, 469, 666, 898), this determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment identifies what a claimant can still do despite impairments and must be supported by evidence.

Harris v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-15(a)(1)

If a claimant does not meet or equal a listing, the ALJ must formulate the claimant’s RFC, which is defined as the most that a person can still do despite the limitations associated with their impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... In other words, the court finds that the residual functioning opinions of Drs. Pinkston and Stephenson (and, by extension, the RFC) were arbitrarily formulated and were totally unsupported by anything that could be considered substantial evidence.

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

Gandara v. Saul · filed 2022-09-15(a)

An ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) finding is an assessment of the most the claimant can still do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to have evidentiary support for limitations attributed to a claimant’s impairments.

Lawens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-15

The Court concludes the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence. ... However, the ALJ provides no basis to support the additional restrictions for use of plaintiff’s right hand and arm other than the fact that plaintiff had suffered strokes after Dr. Lazzara and Dr. Hahn had issued their opinions.

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

Finn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-15(a)(1)

An RFC determination represents “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations[,]” based on all the relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... First, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision not to include any limitation in the RFC for medication side effects.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to rest on relevant evidence, but does not require a specific medical opinion supporting the finding.

Ursery v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-14(a)

Although the RFC is a medical question and must be supported by some medical evidence, “there is no requirement that an RFC finding be supported by a specific medical opinion.”

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do despite her limitations; a claimant challenging the assessment must identify the additional functional limitations the ALJ should have included.

Lee v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-12(a)(1)

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met her burden to show that the ALJ should have included additional limitations related to peripheral neuropathy, spine disorders, and plantar fasciitis in the residual functional capacity.

An RFC assessment must account for the claimant’s medical history and work limiting symptoms.

Chandler v. Saul · filed 2022-09-20

Overall, the ALJ’s assessed residual functional capacity was consistent with Claimant’s medical history and takes into account her symptoms and likely sources of exacerbation.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to define terms in an RFC assessment when the vocational expert clearly understands them.

Spataro v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-21(a)

After review, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objection unavailing and finds no error in the ALJ’s failure to define the words reasonable, extended, and minimal–where it is abundantly clear that the VE understood their meaning.

An RFC assessment must explain how the evidence supports its conclusions, including why the assessment omits a limitation supported by evidence the ALJ found persuasive.

Rumple v. Saul · filed 2022-09-22

Here, remand is appropriate so that the ALJ can fully explain Claimant’s ability to “frequently” interact with others despite a moderate limitation in this area and explain why a limitation for the one-to-two step instructions is not included despite finding persuasive the State agency psychological consultants’ opinions recommending it.

A claimant must identify the additional functional limitations the evidence supports to show that an ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment omitted necessary restrictions.

Lee v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-20(a)(1)

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met her burden to show that the ALJ should have included additional limitations related to peripheral neuropathy, spine disorders, and plantar fasciitis in the residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to incorporate all functional limitations supported by the medical record, including concentration limitations.

BROWNING v. O'MALLEY · filed 2022-09-22(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. ... The ALJ, however, never explains what residual symptoms might justify Kristina needing to be off-task 5% of the workday, or why a 5% limitation would be sufficient to address any of those symptoms. ... Accordingly, the Court is not certain the ALJ's RFC analysis is supported by substantial evidence and this matter must be remanded for further consideration.

Residual functional capacity describes the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; an assessment is upheld when the ALJ explains it and substantial evidence supports it.

Moreno v. SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-09-27(a)(1)

The ALJ properly explained his reasons for defining the RFC as he did. The RFC led to a finding that Ms. Moreno could still do some work in the national economy. The ALJ’s reasoning was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Residual functional capacity must account for limitations caused by migraines when assessing a claimant’s ability to work.

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

An individual’s residual functional capacity is their ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from their impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... Moreover, even if Plaintiff did not meet the listing, the ALJ erred in failing to incorporate the limitations posed by her migraines into the RFC, such as restrictions from noise, need for days off from work, or off-task time for migraines.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to include limitations attributable to medically determinable impairments and related symptoms; pain from a condition that is not medically determinable does not require an RFC limitation.

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

The ALJ was only required to include limitations and restrictions in the RFC assessment that are “attributable to medically determinable impairments.” See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (discussing the ALJ’s assessment of the RFC limitations as based on a claimant’s medically determinable impairment(s) and any related symptoms). Because Petitioner’s fibromyalgia was found to not be a medically determinable impairment at step two, the ALJ did not err by omitting limitations based on Petitioner’s complaints of pain from the RFC.

An RFC assessment must account for the functional limitations caused by a claimant’s impairments.

Chauncey v. Saul · filed 2022-09-30(a)(1)

Having reviewed and considered the record, the RFC does not adequately account for the functional limitations imposed by Mr. C.’s severe physical impairments.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to discuss the claimant’s abilities; a narrative discussion of the relevant evidence can provide enough explanation for judicial review.

Overcash v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-20

The RFC assessment must include a discussion of the individual's abilities. ... The court finds the ALJ’s seven page, single spaced, narrative discussion of the relevant evidence allows meaningful judicial review of her RFC determination.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to discuss the claimant’s abilities.

Babcock v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-20

The RFC assessment must include a discussion of the individual's abilities.

An RFC must be based on all relevant evidence, but a claimant challenging it must identify a limitation the ALJ omitted to obtain remand on that ground.

Neitzel v. Saul · filed 2022-10-25(a)(1)

The RFC measures the maximum a person can do despite his limitations and must be based upon “all the relevant evidence” in the record. ... However, a flawed RFC assessment will not justify remand unless the claimant can identify additional limitations not already included in the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to account for functional limitations supported by the record; omitting a credited limitation without explanation is error.

Kizokian v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-15(a)

The RFC assessment must include all of the claimant's functional limitations supported by the record. ... The ALJ was required to explain why the ability to make only simple decisions was not ultimately included in the RFC, despite giving credit to the medical opinion from which the limitation was derived. As the ALJ provides no such explanation here, the ALJ erred.

An RFC assessment must account for functional limitations supported by the record, including limitations on reaching overhead.

Sholl v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-07(a)(3)

The ALJ’s reasoning when assigning the RFC, however, is not supported by substantial evidence with respect to Sholl’s ability to reach overhead with her left arm.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the Commissioner to consider each impairment when assessing residual functional capacity, but a claimant must show that a diagnosed impairment causes a significant functional limitation.

Briggs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-12(a)(2)

While the Commissioner must at least consider each impairment when formulating an RFC, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2), plaintiff must present evidence showing the diagnosed impairment causes some significant functional limitation.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments omitted from the step-two severity finding.

Jessup v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-21(a)(2)

If an ALJ proceeds to step four of the of five-step sequential procedure, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments in assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2); 416.945(a)(2); Buck, 869 F.3d at 1049. ... At step two, the ALJ did not discuss the severity of any mental health impairments, and the ALJ did not discuss any mental health symptoms in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC.

An RFC assessment considers all medically determinable impairments, including impairments found non-severe at step two.

O'Bryan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-04(a)(2)

In making this assessment, the ALJ considers all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including any non-severe impairments identified by the ALJ at step two of his or her analysis.

An ALJ must consider all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but need not include limitations the record does not support.

Matthews v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-22(a)(2), (e)

In formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all impairments and the extent to which they are consistent with medical evidence. Id. § 404.1545(a)(2), (e). ... The ALJ found that the record did not establish greater limitations than those included in the RFC assessment, and his decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s impairments and related symptoms, including pain, when assessing exertional and nonexertional capacity.

LEWIS III v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-01-09(b)

An ALJ must determine a claimant’s exertional and non-exertional capacity only after considering all of a claimant’s impairments, as well as any related symptoms, including pain.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence about a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Watts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-11

Here, while the ALJ did not consider Watt’s lymphedema at the second step in his analysis, the ALJ did adequately consider and evaluate Watts’s lymphedema when determining his RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) makes residual functional capacity an administrative assessment based on the record as a whole; the finding need not match a single medical opinion.

Grover v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-11(a)(1)

An RFC finding is administrative in nature, not medical, and its determination is within the province of the ALJ. ... The RFC finding is not defective merely because it “does not perfectly correspond with any of the opinions of medical sources cited in [the ALJ’s] decision.”

Residual functional capacity describes the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; it need not include suggested supervisor redirection when the claimant can maintain concentration for a full-time work schedule without it.

Stalker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-12(a)(1)

Because the consultant found Plaintiff capable of maintaining sufficient concentration to complete a full-time work schedule, the concerns regarding additional instruction/redirection do not describe the most Plaintiff can still do, and therefore do not pertain to the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1) (RFC “is the most you can still do despite your limitations.”).

In assessing residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments and relevant evidence, but need not include limitations unsupported by the record.

Gentry v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-12

In formulating an RFC, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not “severe,” and evaluate “all of the relevant medical and other evidence, including the claimant's testimony.” ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in failing to include either absenteeism or limited contact with other people in the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to base residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence, but does not require separate discussion of every self-reported limitation when the decision addresses that function through other evidence.

Cuckovic v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-13(a)(3)

The ALJ bases his or her determination on all relevant evidence in the case record, including statements from medical sources. ... Given his analysis of Dr. Doss’s sitting/walking restrictions, there was no reason for ALJ Eastham to separately analyze Claimant’s self-reported 1.5 hour walking and 5 minute sitting limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

McNutt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-17(a)(2)

However, a failure on the part of an ALJ to consider an impairment that allegedly results in a limitation in a claimant’s ability to engage in work-related activities is not harmless if the RFC found by the ALJ does not address that limitation.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most work a claimant can perform.

Walters v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-18

A claimant’s RFC is the most work the claimant can perform, not the least. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Before step four, the Commissioner must assess residual functional capacity, meaning the most a claimant can do despite limitations.

Giffin v. Saul · filed 2023-01-18(a)(1)

Prior to step four, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC), which is “the most a claimant can do despite [his or her] limitations.” Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)).

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

Peterson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-20

A claimant's residual functional capacity “is the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945, “in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis,” see Melville v. Apfel, 198 F.3d 45, 52 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2 (July 2, 1996)).

Section 404.1545 places responsibility for determining residual functional capacity on the ALJ, rather than the claimant’s physician.

Romero v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-20

It was not Dr. Nichols’ task, however, to make such an assessment. Rather “it is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the claimant’s physician, to determine residual functional capacity.” Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider severe and non-severe impairments and evaluate the claimant’s ability to sustain physical or mental work activities.

Duxbury v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-25

The RFC is a holistic assessment of the claimant’s medical impairments, both severe and non-severe, that evaluates the claimant’s ability to perform physical or mental work activities on a sustained basis, notwithstanding limitations for collective impairments.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when determining the most a claimant can do despite mental and physical limitations.

Merced-Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-30(a)(1)

In assessing an individual’s impairments, the ALJ considers all of the relevant evidence in the case record to determine the most the individual can do in a work setting despite the limitations imposed by his mental and physical impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a) treats residual functional capacity as the sustained work activities a claimant can still perform despite limitations, based on the relevant evidence.

(SS)Torrecillas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-31(a)

The RFC is an assessment of the sustained, work-related physical and mental activities the claimant can still do on a regular and continuing basis despite her limitations.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-31(a)(1), (3)

In doing so, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, the medical opinions of the treating, examining, and non-examining medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), (3); 416.945(a)(1), (3); see also Rosario v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 877 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1265 (M.D. Fla. 2012). ... And at the very least, Dr. Burke’s opinion is relevant to, and probative of, the resulting RFC. R. 14–17; see Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence in the record, rather than any particular medical opinion.

Barrios v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-01(a)(1)

The adjudicator bases the RFC finding on the record as a whole, not any particular medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (RFC is based on all the relevant evidence in the case record). The ALJ has the obligation to consider the evidence and determine how consistent various opinions are with the evidence and decide the RFC accordingly.

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

Bascue v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-01(a)(1)

One’s RFC is the “most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; further development is unnecessary when the record permits evaluation.

Jones v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-02(a)(3)

An ALJ must assess a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... Plaintiff has not shown that the record was inadequate for the ALJ to evaluate the evidence, and, therefore, the Court does not find any deficiency in the ALJ’s duty to further develop the opinion evidence before reaching a decision.

Section 404.1545 requires a residual functional capacity assessment to consider the claimant’s impairments together and evaluate the ability to sustain work activities.

Cettell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-02

The RFC is a holistic assessment of the claimant’s medical impairments, both severe and non-severe, that evaluates the claimant’s ability to perform physical or mental work activities on a sustained basis, notwithstanding limitations for collective impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... In sum, the ALJ based his RFC determination on a thorough review of the objective medical evidence, Plaintiff's subjective complaints, and the opinions on the record.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant evidence in the claimant’s record when deciding which limitations belong in the residual functional capacity.

DREISTADT v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-02-02(a)(1)

When an ALJ decides which limitations are appropriate to include in a claimant’s RFC, he or she considers “all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

Residual functional capacity is assessed using the relevant medical and other evidence, including reported symptoms.

Cotto-Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-02(a)

The ALJ properly evaluated all opinion and other record evidence, considered plaintiff’s reported symptoms, and in view of such considerations, assessed an RFC that is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider treatment frequency when the record raises the possibility that medical appointments limit a claimant’s ability to work regularly.

Jarvis v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-28

Here, the ALJ was required to consider the frequency of treatment in assessing the claimant’s RFC and ability to engage in substantial gainful activity in the national economy.

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

King v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-07(a)(4)

As to Plaintiff's Second Objection, this Court finds that the ALJ properly met the requirements of SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (hereinafter “SSR 96-8p”). When determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity, SSR 96-8p directs the ALJ to consider a claimant’s ability to meet physical, mental, sensory, and other work requirements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(4).

An RFC assessment may adequately address the abilities required for medium work without naming each task and ability, if its analysis of the evidence addresses them.

RODRIGUEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-03-30

Given that ALJ Shillin’s RFC assessment addressed all of the tasks and abilities associated with medium work, her failure to refer to those tasks and abilities by name did not constitute error.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite impairments, assessed using all relevant medical and other evidence.

Parr v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-03-30(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)(4) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work when assessing residual functional capacity.

(SS) Shelton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(a)(4)

The court finds that the ALJ met his burden to consider the claimant’s “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(4), and that plaintiff's assessed RFC was adequately explained and grounded in substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to discuss the claimant's abilities.

Margis v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-30

The RFC assessment must include a discussion of the individual's abilities.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence of what a claimant can do despite limitations caused by impairments and related symptoms.

Keen v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(a)(1)

To determine a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ makes an assessment based on all the relevant evidence of record as to what a claimant can do in a work setting despite any physical or mental limitations caused by the claimant’s impairments and related symptoms.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptoms and their limiting effects alongside the medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(a)(1)

To determine a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s symptoms, their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects, and the consistency of these symptoms with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. ... Ms. T’s challenges to her RFC reveal a pattern of analysis by the ALJ that is not supported by substantial evidence such that remand is required.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant medical and other evidence of what a claimant can still do despite impairments.

Griffin v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2023-03-31(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) treats residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite impairments, based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Culpepper v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-03-31(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.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and is determined from all relevant medical and other evidence.

Capers v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-31(a)(1)

A plaintiff’s RFC is “the most [she] can still do despite [her] limitations” and is determined “based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record,” namely, “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... In short, I find that the ALJ’s RFC determinations were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Residual functional capacity concerns limitations caused by medically determinable impairments; the frequency of medical appointments alone does not establish a work limitation.

McFadden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-31(b), (c)

To be able to perform work “on a regular and continuing basis,” a claimant need not keep a particular work schedule. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b) & (c) (assessing physical and mental limitations to “determine your residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis”). ... At bottom, when assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ properly focuses on the functional limitations and restrictions resulting from medically determinable impairments, not the frequency of a claimant’s medical appointments.

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

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

The RFC assessment represents the most a claimant can do despite any physical and mental limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite limitations; an ALJ may synthesize medical findings when an opinion does not specify those remaining abilities.

Lane v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-31(a)(1)

Therefore, there were no limitations in Dr. Doyle’s opinion that could have been incorporated wholesale into Lane’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (“Your residual functional capacity is the most you can still do despite your limitations.”). Without further guidance from the opinion, the ALJ properly synthesized Dr. Doyle’s findings to determine what Lane could still do despite her limitations.

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

Bates v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-04-03

The RFC is the most a claimant can do, it is based upon all of the relevant evidence, and it is the ALJ’s duty to formulate a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 404.1546.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work when assessing residual functional capacity.

Shivers v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-07(a)(4)

When assessing the RFC, the ALJ “will consider [the plaintiff’s] ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work, as described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)”. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(4), 416.945(a)(4).

A residual functional capacity assessment may account for supported mental impairments through limits on task complexity, workplace changes, and social interaction.

PODGUSKI v. SAUL · filed 2023-04-10(a)(1)

The ALJ took Mr. Podguski’s impairments into account when she included in the RFC limitations of, “unskilled, simple, routine tasks; simple decisions; occasional changes in the workplace; and occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors and no direct public interaction.” R. 14. The limitations account for the restriction that Mr. Podguski described, he can do simple and routine tasks, with only occasional disruptions.

Section 404.1545 requires residual functional capacity to reflect the limitations supported by the record; restrictions on work duties and public contact can account for mental limitations.

BILLUPS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-04-11

A claimant’s residual functional capacity is the most he can do despite his limitations and is based on all the relevant evidence in the case record, including his medical history, medical signs and laboratory findings, the effects of treatment, daily activities, recorded observations, and any medical source statements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... By limiting Plaintiff to simple, routine work, with uniform day-to-day duties, very limited contact with the public, and preferably working alone, the ALJ adequately incorporated the mental limitations supported by the record.

Section 404.1545 allows an ALJ to express persuasive medical findings in different words when the RFC remains consistent with the restrictions identified in the medical evidence.

Thorp v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-13

An ALJ is not compelled to adopt, word-for-word, the limitations set forth by a medical source opinion the ALJ has found persuasive, so long as the ALJ’s RFC is “consistent with restrictions identified in the medical testimony.” Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, the ALJ did not err because she reasonably relied on the doctors’ opinions, and crafted an RFC consistent with those opinions.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must explain how evidence of frequent medical treatment and resulting absenteeism affects the claimant’s ability to work.

Faith Dennis v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-14(a)(1)

On remand, the ALJ must discuss the record evidence regarding the frequency of Dennis’ need for medical treatment and how Dennis’ absenteeism affects her ability to work.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using relevant evidence; use of a cane or walker is a functional limitation only when medically required.

Acencio v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-19(a)(3)

The use of a hand-held assistive device such as a cane is a functional limitation only if it is medically required. ... Plaintiff’s own testimony and mere references in treatment notes to her use of an assistive device are not enough to show medical need.

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

Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-19(a)(1)

The RFC assessment is an evaluation of the most a claimant can still do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Residual functional capacity must account for functional limitations caused by a claimant’s impairments, including severe anxiety about leaving home.

Letts v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-24(a)(1)

The ALJ’s failure to account for Plaintiff’s inability to leave his house without severe anxiety is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and therefore was in error.

An RFC assesses the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and is based on all relevant evidence.

(SS) Barney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-22(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to evaluate the claimant’s ability to perform physical work functions, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling.

Clark v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-30(b)

Pursuant to SSR 96-8p, an ALJ’s RFC assessment must evaluate the claimant’s ability to perform the physical functions listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b)—“sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping or crouching) [that] may reduce [a claimant’s] ability to do past work and other work.”

An ALJ must explain how the evidence supports the functional limitations in a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Bowman v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-17(a)(1)

However, 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.

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

Almeida v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-20(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC represents “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... As such, and because Plaintiff alleges no other errors affecting the formulation of the RFC, I find that the ALJ’s RFC was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the work-related physical and mental activities a claimant can sustain regularly despite limitations.

(SS) Sepulveda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-21(a)

The RFC is an assessment of the sustained, work-related physical and mental activities the claimant can still do on a regular and continuing basis despite his limitations.

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

(SS) Grimaldi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-21(a)(3)

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

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from sufficient record evidence without relying heavily on medical opinions.

Lipkus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-21

Although the ALJ did not rely heavily on limitations articulated in the opinion evidence, the record contained substantial evidence from which the ALJ could formulate Plaintiffs physical and mental RFC.

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant medical and other evidence, including evidence of a claimant’s need for a cane, and reflect what the claimant can do despite limitations.

Quick v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-24(a)

The Court agrees that the ALJ failed to properly consider plaintiff's need for a hand-held assistive device, specifically a cane. An RFC assessment must be based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence and should reflect the most that a claimant can do, despite the claimant’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

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

Fair v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-24(a)(3)

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

Residual functional capacity assesses the most a claimant can do despite limitations and must be based on all relevant evidence in the case file.

Payne v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-25(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence, including medical records, medical opinions, and the claimant’s description of limitations.

Ocasio-Cordova v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-26(a)(1)

When formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must base his determination on all relevant evidence, including a claimant’s medical record, the medical opinions, and a claimant’s descriptions of her limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 404.1546.

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

Gigliotti v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-26(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(3) bases a residual functional capacity assessment on all relevant evidence, including medical history and statements about the claimant’s abilities and limitations.

Salem v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-28(a)(3)

The RFC assessment is based on all relevant evidence in the record, including: a claimant’s complete medical history; statements from medical sources about what the claimant is still capable of; and statements about the claimant’s limitations from the claimant herself, her family, neighbors, friends, or other people. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

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

(SS) Abitia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-31(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.” ... The ALJ reasonably limited Plaintiff to frequent, not occasional, manipulative activities.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) directs an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using the record as a whole, including credible claimant testimony and medical source opinions.

Hammons v. SSA · filed 2023-07-31(a)(1)

The administrative law judge bases her residual functional capacity finding on a review of the record as a whole, including a claimant’s credible testimony and the opinions from a claimant’s medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... On review, the Court finds ALJ Francis’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence, including Plaintiff’s medical records and her own testimony, and the Court finds no error.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from all relevant medical and other evidence and to reassess it when errors in evaluating medical opinions affect that determination.

Munro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-02

The ALJ determines a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. The Court has found the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical opinions of Dr. Clune and Dr. Eveillard regarding Plaintiff’s child disability insurance benefits claim. As such errors adversely affect the ALJ’s RFC determination, on remand the ALJ must reassess Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence, including medical opinions from treating, examining, and non-examining sources, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Young v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-02(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), 416.945(a)(3).

A severe impairment finding does not itself establish particular residual functional capacity limitations; those depend on the medical evidence in the individual case.

Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-03(a)

At the outset, the Court notes that the ALJ’s finding of a severe impairment at step two of the sequential analysis does not in and of itself establish particular limitations, as Plaintiff suggests. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). Instead, the requisite limitations will depend on the particular medical evidence in the individual case.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s functional limitations and ability to work by function, considering all relevant evidence.

Boice v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-08-17(b)–(d)

When assessing a claimant’s RFC, Social Security Ruling 96-8p dictates that the ALJ first must determine the claimant’s functional limitations and then address her 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. ... In arriving at this conclusion, the ALJ assessed all of the relevant evidence of Boice’s ability to do work-related activities and thoroughly addressed Dr. McDonald’s opinion.

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

Concepcion v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-18(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the maximum work that she can perform despite any limitations. ... Viewing the record as a whole, the ALJ provided valid reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective statements regarding her hand functioning, and fairly concluded that she has an RFC for frequent handling, fingering, and feeling.

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

PETERSEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-08-18(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most that the claimant can do despite the claimant’s limitations.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations, and the assessment must account for the claimant’s reported symptoms.

Lager v. O'Malley · filed 2023-08-21(a)(1)

The ALJ’s RFC assessment must address Plaintiff’s reported symptoms and represents the most a claimant can do in the workplace. ... While the ALJ must consider all the evidence, the ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence32 and the court concludes that the ALJ properly considered the record and there is substantial evidence that supports the ALJ’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as a claimant’s ability to work despite impairments.

Hosfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-22(a)(1)

The RFC is an assessment of a claimant’s ability to do work despite his impairments. ... The ALJ applied the correct legal standards and reached a conclusion supported by substantial evidence in determining that Hosfield could perform work at the medium exertional level work during the relevant period.

Section 404.1545 does not require an ALJ to adopt every specific limitation proposed in a medical opinion when assessing residual functional capacity.

Cramer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-01

The undersigned is not persuaded that the ALJ was required to adopt each specific limitation proposed by Dr. Mannis or to explain in further detail why such additional limitations were not included in Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the RFC to include all limitations the ALJ finds, even those arising from nonsevere impairments.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-21(a)(2), (e)

All limitations that an ALJ finds for a claimant must be included in the RFC and the hypothetical questions, even those that are not severe.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment based on the evidence as a whole; the ALJ need not adopt every limitation in a persuasive medical opinion.

Locke v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-27

An RFC is based on all the medical evidence, opinions, and supported consistent allegations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... The ALJ determines the RFC; it is not automatically dictated by the opinions in the record.

An RFC assessment must consider the effects of a claimant’s impairments; remand is warranted when omitted treatment records prevent review of whether a condition affects RFC.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-29(a)

Without being satisfied that these records were adequately considered, judicial review is frustrated. The matter must be reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the evidence on Plaintiff’s skin condition, including whether it meets or equals a Listing, and whether it affects Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(4) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider a claimant’s ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.

Smith v. Commissioner for Social Security · filed 2023-09-28(a)(4)

When formulating the RFC, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(4).

An RFC assessment must consider relevant evidence of a claimant’s work-related limitations; excluding supported limitations without explanation is error.

Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-30(a)

Despite this testimony and other evidence showing additional hand limitations, the ALJ did not include any manipulative limitations in her RFC assessment beyond the lifting and carrying limitation. Neither did she explain why such limitations were excluded from the RFC determination. This is error.

Section 404.1545(a) assesses a claimant’s maximum ability to work on a sustained basis despite impairments, using all relevant evidence.

Kirby v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2023-09-30(a)

Generally, the RFC is an assessment based on all the relevant evidence of a claimant’s maximum ability to do work on a sustained basis in an ordinary work setting despite his or her impairments.

Section 404.1545(a) requires residual functional capacity to reflect what a claimant can still do despite physical or mental limitations, based on the relevant evidence.

Lee v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-02(a)

“RFC is defined as ‘the most [a claimant] can still do despite’ his or her ‘physical or mental limitations.’” Masterson v. Barnhart, 363 F.3d 731, 737 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). ... As discussed in detail above regarding the ALJ’s duty to develop the record, this Court believes that the ALJ did consider the objective medical records, treatment notes and observations, and Mr. Lee’s own complaints in determining the RFC and, thus, “cannot conclude that the ALJ’s formulation of [Mr. Lee]’s RFC was error.” McKinney, 228 F.3d at 863.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the record when assessing residual functional capacity.

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

After all, the ALJ must consider all the evidence of record in assessing Mr. L’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); Cervantes v. Kijakazi, No. 20-3334, 2021 WL 6101361, at *2 (7th Cir. Dec. 21, 2021). And the ALJ did just that.

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

Bowen v. Social Security Commissioner · filed 2023-10-05(a)(1)

An ALJ assesses a claimant’s “residual functional capacity based on all the relevant evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... A review of the ALJ’s decision demonstrates that he did not ignore evidence regarding Ms. Bowen’s fibromyalgia or reports of pain.

An ALJ must consider all relevant evidence when determining the most a claimant can do despite impairments.

Ceaser v. Saul · filed 2023-10-06(a)(3)

In formulating an RFC, an ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence and determine the most that a plaintiff can do, despite that plaintiff’s impairments.

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

(SS) Raul Rangel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-13(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(a) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider the entire record, including objective medical evidence and the claimant’s subjective complaints.

Arrington v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-16(a)

That the ALJ considered objective evidence in addition to Plaintiff’s subjective complaints does not amount to legal error; in fact, considering the entire record—including both the objective medical record and Plaintiff’s subjective complaints—is exactly what the ALJ was required to do. See Crystal Louise H. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., Civ. No. ADC-18-3922, 2019 WL 5309997, at *7 (D. Md. Oct. 21, 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2 (July 2, 1996)) (“In determining RFC, an ALJ must take into account the entire record, opinion evidence, impairments that are not severe, and any limitations the ALJ finds.”).

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider the record evidence and explain why evidence is rejected or discounted.

PAGANO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-10-16(a)

Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ sufficiently considered the record evidence, indicated which evidence he rejected, and provided his reasons for discounting such evidence in reaching his RFC determination.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments and relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, but to include only limitations supported by substantial evidence.

Barton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-16

In formulating an RFC, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not “severe,” and evaluate “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including the claimant's testimony. ... However, only limitations supported by substantial evidence must be incorporated into the RFC and, by extension, the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert. ... Because Plaintiff's upper extremity limitations were not supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ did not err in construing Plaintiff's RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the Commissioner to assess all evidence, including descriptions of limitations and medical reports, when determining residual functional capacity.

Vaden v. Social Security · filed 2023-10-17(a)(3)

In determining the RFC, the Commissioner must assess all evidence, including the claimant's and others' descriptions of the limitation(s), and medical reports, to determine what capacity the claimant has for work despite his or her impairments.

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

(SS) Venkaiya v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-18(a)

The regulations define the residual functional capacity as “the most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do in a work setting; the RFC need not include greater limitations when the evidence does not support them.

Dancy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-18(a)(1)

The RFC is the most a claimant can do in a work setting, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The evidence during the relevant time-period fails to support that greater limitation was needed than what was included in the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) assigns the ALJ responsibility for assessing residual functional capacity from the record as a whole, rather than requiring an assessment that matches a medical opinion.

Abdallah v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-18(a)

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

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

Rustowicz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-19

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

Mccastle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-19

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 ALJ assesses residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence; the assessment need not mirror a particular opinion.

(SS) Haller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-23(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).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) measures residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence of the tasks a claimant can perform despite limitations.

Davis v. Saul · filed 2023-10-23(a)(1)

The RFC measures the tasks a person can perform given limitations based on “all the relevant evidence” in the administrative record. ... As such, the court has no concerns that the ALJ improperly substituted his own lay judgment for that of medical experts when crafting Dwayne’s RFC.

Residual functional capacity measures the most work a claimant can perform despite her limitations; the assessment must reflect limitations supported by the record.

Steele v. Saul · filed 2023-10-27(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the maximum work that she can perform despite any limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); SSR 96-8p. ... The ALJ reasonably determined from these records that Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome is a severe impairment that limits her to frequent as opposed to constant hand use. (R. 33, 36).

Residual functional capacity need not include a work limitation from an impairment that treatment has left essentially asymptomatic.

Benson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-12(a)(1)

In other words, plaintiff’s treatment for left thumb osteoarthritis (or, perhaps more aptly, the lack thereof) indicates this condition has been managed to the extent that it does not result in limitations to plaintiff’s ability to work. Consequently, this Court determines that the osteoarthritis diagnosis would not have changed Dr. Scheffer’s opinion because it has been treated to the point of being essentially asymptomatic.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC finding that does not precisely match any single medical opinion when substantial evidence supports it.

Pickett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-27

An ALJ’s RFC conclusion need not precisely match any single medical opinion in the record—so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Craig v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-03(a)

Here, the Court finds Christopher G. persuasive and finds that the ALJ erred by not incorporating Drs. Hendron and Wright’s Psychological Interruption Opinions into the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a person can do, making improvement with treatment relevant to assessing functioning.

Strand v. O'Malley · filed 2023-12-29(a)

Yet, the RFC reflects the most a person can do; therefore, it is appropriate to consider improvement in assessing Plaintiff’s functioning and the intensity and severity of Plaintiff’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

An RFC must consider limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe ones, but need only include limitations supported by the medical record.

Herr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-20(a)(2)

Additionally, “while an ALJ must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by an individual’s impairments, even those that are non-severe, the RFC need only incorporate limitations supported by the claimant’s medical record.”

An ALJ may omit a claimed limitation from the residual functional capacity assessment when sufficient evidence supports the assessment and the ALJ explains why the limitation does not warrant a specific restriction.

McNeal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-18

Ultimately, the ALJ’s RFC analysis is not erroneous because he provides sufficient evidence and explains why Claimant’s limitations, imposed by the side effects of Gleevec, do not translate into a specific limitation in the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for all of a claimant’s relevant limitations.

Hasbrouck v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-18(a)(1)

In doing so, the ALJ improperly assigned Hasbrouck a RFC that did not take into account all of her limitations.

An ALJ may omit a proposed limitation from the residual functional capacity assessment when the ALJ explains the omission and substantial evidence supports the assessment.

Hunter v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-22(a)(3)

Mr. H. has identified no authority requiring an ALJ to adopt a limitation from a medical opinion word-for-word under these circumstances, where the ALJ found the overall opinion only partially persuasive and explained his omission of the particular limitation at issue. ... Further, the ALJ’s mental RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC must consider all medically determinable impairments and relevant evidence; omitting clarifying wording is harmless when the ALJ and vocational expert share the only understanding of the limitation supported by the record.

Vansciver v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-30(a)

The RFC is the most a person can do, despite his or her physical or mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). In formulating an RFC, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not “severe,” and evaluate “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including the claimant’s testimony. Id.; SSR 96-8p, available at 1996 WL 374184. ... Because the record establishes that the ALJ and the VE had the same understanding of the limitation, and that understanding is the only one consistent with the record, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s omission of the phrase “scattered throughout the workday” is not harmful error.

An RFC assessment must account for accepted limits on sitting, standing, and walking; a 30-minute sit/stand option alone does not account for limits to occasional activity.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-12(a)(1)

The RFC assessment “is the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... So, when the ALJ simply permitted a 30-minute option to sit/stand, without any other frequency limitations on Plaintiff’s ability to sit, stand, and walk, the ALJ did not adequately account for Dr. Adaralegbe’s opinion in this regard.

An ALJ must account for a claimant’s symptom limitations when assessing residual functional capacity unless the testimony is properly discounted.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-21(a)

Here, the Court finds the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. The ALJ’s error affected the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC, which allowed for light work at step five, and required the ability to stand and walk, off and on, for a total of approximately six hours in an 8-hour workday; frequent reaching, handling, and fingering; the ability to frequently perform postural activities, such as bending or squatting; and the ability to exert up to 20 pounds of force occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ’s RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, and is the product of legal error.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using the whole record, including subjective complaints, but does not require adopting complaints unsupported by medical evidence.

Skold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-14

Thus, because the ALJ properly concluded that Plaintiffs subjective complaints about the limiting effects of her impairments were not supported by the medical evidence in the record, the ALJ was not required to adopt Plaintiffs subjective complaints in formulating the RFC.

An ALJ must explain how the residual functional capacity assessment accounts for a claimant’s supported limitations well enough to permit judicial review.

Kendrick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-15(a)

The ALJ provided only a cursory explanation of why he limited Plaintiff to the reduced range of light work in the RFC. That cursory explanation did not address how the RFC limitations account for Plaintiff’s migraine headaches. Because the ALJ’s decision did not build a logical bridge between the evidence and the ALJ’s conclusions about Plaintiff’s migraines, reversal is required.

An RFC assessment considers exertional and non-exertional limitations known to the ALJ; it does not require investigation of an unalleged physical impairment.

Uht v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-22(a)

When determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ analyzes both exertional and non-exertional limitations “of which [they] are aware.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (emphasis added). ... Accordingly, it was not ALJ Solomon’s role to investigate a potential physical disability or exertional impairment when considering Plaintiff’s RFC.

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant evidence, including the claimant’s description of limitations, and explain contested functional findings sufficiently to permit review.

Astin v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-18(a)(3)

It is based upon all relevant evidence, which may include the claimant’s own description of limitations from alleged symptoms. SSR 96–8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Here, the court is left to speculate how the ALJ arrived at her conclusion that Plaintiff could perform the sitting, standing, and walking requirements of light work without limitation, despite contrary evidence in the record. See Mascio, 780 F.3d at 637. Remand is therefore required.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to account for supported limitations caused by symptoms, including frequent and unexpected restroom use.

Rhodifer v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2024-05-16(a)(3)

Because the ALJ failed to address Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his gastrointestinal problems to include frequent and unexpected use of the restroom that appears to be supported by the medical records that revealed Plaintiff’s diagnosis and treatment for on-going gastrointestinal problems, the Court is unable to determine if the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 permits a mental RFC assessment when the ALJ gives a valid explanation grounded in the evidence, without requiring particular wording.

Roecker v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-10(a)(1)

Instead, the evaluation of a claimant’s ability to undertake the mental demands of the workplace will be viewed in the factual context of the case, and a mental RFC is sufficient if it is supported by a valid explanation grounded in the evidence.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC finding that reflects the record as a whole even if it does not exactly match a medical source’s opinion.

Tomaselli v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-11

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 need not include every alleged limitation from an impairment found severe at step two; the ALJ includes limitations supported by the record.

Hollenhors v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-18(a)(1)-(3)

The ALJ committed no error by finding Plaintiff’s migraines a “severe impairment” at step two and formulating an RFC that did not include restrictions that address the full range of Plaintiff’s alleged migraine symptoms.

Section 404.1545(a) assesses what a claimant can still do despite impairments; an RFC need not include limitations unsupported by the record.

Reyes v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-11-21(a)

However, the ALJ is not required to incorporate limitations in the RFC that are not supported in the record.

An RFC assessment must account for credibly established functional limitations, and an ALJ must explain the omission of a credible limitation from a medical opinion the ALJ found persuasive.

ROBLES v. KKIJAKAZI · filed 2024-12-09(a)(1)

The ALJ is required to include in the RFC any credibly established limitation supported by the record. ... While the ALJ was not required to include every limitation opined by Dr. Stone, because she found this opinion to be the most persuasive, she needed to provide some explanation regarding her decision to omit a credible limitation from the RFC.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ need not explain how each diagnosis leads to particular impairments before considering how those impairments limit work performance.

Lewis v. Colvin · filed 2024-12-30

Again, an ALJ is not required to lay out how each of a claimant’s diagnoses may lead to particular impairments before examining how the impairments resulting from that diagnosis may limit a claimant’s work performance.

Section 404.1545(b) requires the Commissioner to assess the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations before determining capacity for work on a regular and continuing basis.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-07(b)

The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] [R]esidual [F]unctional [C]apacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to exclude an alleged sit/stand limitation from the RFC when substantial evidence supports that assessment.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-03(a)(1)

Even if this is not the case, however, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding to exclude this limitation.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all credible, substantially supported limitations when assessing residual functional capacity and to reassess it when errors in evaluating those limitations undermine the assessment.

(SS) Yiengyouav v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-21(a)

In determining the RFC, the ALJ must consider all limitations, severe and non-severe, that are credible and supported by substantial evidence in the record. ... The ALJ must reconsider Ms. Desai’s opinion, and reassess the RFC, on remand.

An RFC need not include additional limitations for symptoms whose alleged severity the ALJ adequately explains accepting only in part.

Cunningham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-14

The assigned RFC did not need to include any additional limitations accounting for Plaintiffs headaches because the ALJ adequately explained why Plaintiffs subjective complaints about their severity were only partially accepted.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require a limitation based solely on a condition that is not medically determinable.

Vugdalic v. King · filed 2025-03-05(a)(2)

And the ALJ was only required to consider Ms. V.’s medically determinable impairments in assessing her residual functional capacity.

An RFC assessment must account for the claimant’s credibly established limitations supported by the record.

GLACKIN v. DUDEK · filed 2025-03-27(a)(3)

The ALJ also properly included the credibly established limitations in Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to reflect the most a claimant can do despite impairments and to include limitations supported by the record.

Doing v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-28

In formulating Plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ reasonably relied on persuasive medical opinions and the overall record to determine the most Plaintiff could do, despite his symptoms. An ALJ need only include limitations in the RFC that are supported by the record, and it is the ALJ’s obligation to resolve any conflicts in the record when distilling the RFC. See, e.g., Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the ALJ formulated an RFC that was well-supported by the record, and sufficiently resolved any conflicts.

Section 404.1545 includes in residual functional capacity only limitations caused by impairments.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-06

Evidence of situational stressors suggests Plaintiff’s symptoms had causes other than her impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (RFC incorporates only limitations from impairments).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ who credits a claimant’s blackouts to explain how they affect the claimant’s residual functional capacity beyond any restriction on operating a motorized vehicle.

Goers v. Bisignano · filed 2025-06-17(a)(1)

On remand, the ALJ must explain whether and how Douglas’s blackouts impact other aspects of his RFC beyond his ability to operate a motorized vehicle.