20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

An ALJ must explain why a limitation on the nature of workplace interactions is omitted from the residual functional capacity, or include it.

STUMLER v. BISIGNANO · filed 2025-09-22

The ALJ's limitation on the quantity of Paul's interactions with supervisors and co-workers therefore does not allow the Court to evaluate the ALJ's decision not to restrict the nature of those interactions, requiring remand.

A mild social limitation need not be included as a restriction in the residual functional capacity assessment.

GRIFFITH · filed 2026-02-27

Having determined that Plaintiff’s social limitation was mild, the ALJ did not need to incorporate that impairment into the RFC.

An RFC restriction against tandem or team work does not by itself account for moderate limitations in interacting with others.

DeLine · filed 2026-03-16

Thus, ALJ Molleur’s decision to craft an RFC restricting Michele D. from tandem work or teamwork is insufficient to account for moderate limitations in interacting with others.

An RFC assessment that assigns different limits for interacting with the public, co-workers, and supervisors must explain those distinctions sufficiently for review.

Luis B. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-03-20

The ALJ concluded, without meaningful explanation, that Plaintiff is capable of greater interaction with co-workers and supervisors than with the general public. This conclusion is not supported by the medical opinions of record, nor is it clearly consistent with Plaintiff’s own testimony.

Residual functional capacity must reflect whether a claimant can sustain frequent handling and fingering throughout a workday.

Alicaic v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-21(a)(1)

And the treatment records also support that Alicaic’s left-sided weakness worsened with repetitive use, suggesting that even if Alicaic could use his hands and fingers on occasion, he could not sustain the repetitive use of his hands and fingers (two-thirds, or six hours, of an eight-hour day, day in and day out) as found by the ALJ.

An RFC assessment must consider reported pain, but reported pain does not automatically require a manipulative limitation.

Lanpher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-31(a)(1)-(2)

Evidence of Plaintiff's manipulative limitations consisted primarily of self-reported symptoms of pain, which must be considered but which do not automatically translate into manipulative limitations. ... Because the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff did not have manipulative impairments that required further limitations in her RFC was supported by substantial evidence, and because the correct legal standards were applied, the court must affirm that determination on appeal.

Section 404.1545 permits an RFC limiting a claimant to frequent bilateral handling when the evidence supports that limit despite a severe hand impairment.

Nieves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-22(a)(1)

Instead, the ALJ appropriately accounted for the limitations related to Plaintiff’s trigger finger condition by limiting Plaintiff to only frequent handling bilaterally (Tr. 22).

An ALJ considers all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but need not include alleged limitations without evidentiary support.

Kline v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-29(a)(2)

In making this assessment, the ALJ considers all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including any non-severe impairments identified by the ALJ at step two of his or her analysis. ... Here, Plaintiff cites no support for his assertions that he needs to elevate his legs, take breaks, be absent, or use a cane.

Section 404.1545 prescribes no legal test for how frequently a claimant can reach; the ALJ determines that capacity from the evidence.

Nelson v. Colvin · filed 2024-12-17(a)(1)

At the outset, the court acknowledges that there is no legal test for determining the frequency that a claimant can reach.

An RFC may omit manipulative limitations when substantial evidence supports that assessment and the claimant has not shown that those limitations are needed.

Hopper · filed 2026-03-03(a)

That finding certainly provides substantial evidence for an RFC that does not impose specific manipulative limitations.

When significant new medical evidence may affect residual functional capacity, the ALJ must obtain a medical expert’s opinion before relying on an earlier assessment.

Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-22

While the ALJ would not have been required to submit this evidence to a medical expert if the record only showed “mild changes” in his conditions, multiple portions of the record explicitly stated there were “significant” changes. In such a situation, the ALJ is required to seek out an opinion from a medical expert who is capable of properly assessing the impact of these new records on the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires further development of the record when new objective medical findings need a medical opinion to assess residual functional capacity.

Stevenson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-29(a)(3)

For the following reasons, the Court finds that remand is required because the medical record contains a “critical body” of objective medical evidence that is neither accounted for by a medical opinion or sufficiently acknowledged or addressed by the ALJ.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider all relevant evidence and obtain medical expert input before interpreting significant new MRI findings to support a work capacity.

Brown · filed 2026-03-31(a)(1), (a)(3)

But either way, the ALJ was not qualified to conclude that the MRI results were consistent with his RFC assessment of medium exertional work without an expert opinion interpreting the results. Because the ALJ impermissibly interpreted the MRI results himself, the ALJ’s decision must be reversed and the case remanded to the agency.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) generally makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence for a residual functional capacity finding and requires the agency to develop the claimant’s complete medical history. An updated medical opinion is not required when the ALJ considers later evidence and the assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

Nalley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-24(a)(3)

The regulations provide that, generally, a claimant is “responsible for providing the evidence [the agency] will use to make a finding about [their] residual functional capacity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... For all of these reasons, the Court finds ALJ McDaniel’s evaluation of Nalley’s mental and physical impairments in her RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record and comports with the applicable regulations and caselaw. She was not required to seek additional opinion evidence.

An RFC limiting a claimant to light work includes a standing and walking limitation; the ALJ need not state that limit separately.

Ellis v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-26(b)

Plaintiff argues that the RFC is deficient because it does not include a standing and walking limitation, but the “light work” limitation in the RFC includes a standing and walking limitation.

Section 404.1545 does not require an RFC finding to specify the length of each standing interval when it accounts for a claimant’s need to alternate sitting and standing.

Boyd v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-04

The ALJ considered that Plaintiff would need to alternate between sitting and standing/walking and while the ALJ did not provide a specific amount of time that Plaintiff was required to stand after sitting, neither the regulations nor case authority require such specificity.

An RFC assessment need not include a sit/stand option when no medical opinion supports it and finding one necessary would require interpreting raw medical evidence.

Sylvain v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2025-08-14

However, she has not pointed to any medical opinion that she needs a sit/stand option, and it would be inappropriate for the Court to reach that conclusion by interpreting or evaluating the objective medical evidence – such as the lumbar spine MRI – to reach that conclusion.

A residual functional capacity assessment must address a supported need to alternate sitting and standing and explain the frequency of that limitation.

Jones · filed 2025-11-06

Having accepted in the RFC that Plaintiff could not regularly stand or walk, even if the scope of such a limitation was not clearly defined by medical opinions, the ALJ was not free to omit such limitations from the RFC without an explanation regarding frequency and the apparent need to alternate between sitting and standing.

An RFC assessment may allow light work despite limitations on prolonged walking when a sit/stand option and other restrictions account for those limitations.

Kareem v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-06

I conclude that the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff was capable of performing the walking requirements of light work so long as he was provided the ability to alternate positions and accommodation of his other postural limitations was well-supported by the opinions provided by Liu and Suteh.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on relevant evidence; an ALJ need not consider an opinion that addresses only limitations arising after the claimant’s date last insured.

Harabowskie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-20(a)(1)

As such, the ALJ was not required to consider Dr. Timson’s untimely opinion.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) measures residual functional capacity by what a claimant can still do despite limitations; later medical evidence bears on that assessment when it reflects limitations during the relevant period.

Gallagher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-14(a)(1)

Medical evidence from the period after the date last insured, to the extent it relates back to the period of alleged disability, is relevant “only if it is reflective of a claimant’s limitations prior to the date last insured, rather than merely his impairments or condition prior to this date.” Id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (explaining that the claimant’s RFC is the “most you can still do despite your limitations”).

In assessing residual functional capacity, medical evidence after the date last insured may illuminate limitations that existed during the insured period.

McCall o/b/o Tamara McCall v. Saul · filed 2018-01-13(a)(3)

However, the Court is not persuaded by the Commissioner’s argument that subsequent treatment reports regarding the same underlying condition should be ignored or given limited weight because they fall after the date last-insured.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) does not require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s ability to communicate in English when assessing residual functional capacity.

Arias v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-12(a)(2)

Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in failing to consider Plaintiff’s ability to communicate in English as part of the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) charges the ALJ with assessing residual functional capacity based on all relevant medical and other evidence; doing so does not amount to rendering a medical opinion.

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

The ALJ is specifically charged to “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), and to evaluate medical opinion evidence according to applicable regulatory standards, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The discharge of these regulatory duties is not tantamount to rendering a medical opinion.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an RFC assessment based on all relevant record evidence; the assessment need not rely on an RFC opinion from a medical source.

Hampton · filed 2026-03-25(a)(1)

The regulations do not require the ALJ to base her RFC on an RFC assessment from a medical source, so the failure to include a medical source opinion does not necessarily render the ALJ’s RFC assessment invalid.

An ALJ may determine residual functional capacity from the record as a whole without a supporting medical opinion.

Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-27(a)(3)

Contrary to Ms. Moore’s argument, the ALJ was not required to base the RFC finding on a medical opinion.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence without adopting a particular medical opinion.

(SS)Davidson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-13(a)(3)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(3) allows an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the relevant record without relying on an updated medical opinion when substantial evidence supports the assessment.

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

The evidence cited in the decision constitutes substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s findings, and the ALJ was not required to rely on an updated medical opinion in assessing Ms. G.’s RFC.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ may use findings and opinions from multiple physicians without adopting any single physician’s opinion.

Melendez-Alcaraz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-29(a)(1)

However, that is not the case: the ALJ need not adopt any single physician’s opinion in making an RFC determination and may “piece together the relevant medical facts from the findings and opinions of multiple physicians.”

Section 404.1545 allows an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using other record evidence when the available medical opinions are unpersuasive.

Coffee v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-01(a)(1)

The regulations do not prohibit the ALJ from assessing the claimant’s RFC based on other record evidence when the ALJ finds the available medical opinions to be unpersuasive.

An ALJ may determine residual functional capacity without obtaining an updated medical opinion when the ALJ considers later evidence and incorporates appropriate limitations.

Nguyen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-13(a)(3)

Although the state agency opinions were not based on the full record, ALJ Wilkerson was not required to obtain additional opinion evidence because he considered Claimant’s CT scan and subjective complaints and incorporated additional limitations to ensure adequate weight was given to this evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider medical opinions when assessing residual functional capacity and to explain the omission of a persuasive opinion’s limitation when it affects the jobs the claimant can perform.

Saunders v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-14(a)(3)

When assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). ... The ALJ did not explain why he rejected a limitation to short instructions, despite finding the state agency psychologists’ findings to be persuasive. And this was not harmless error because a limitation to short instructions conflicts with the requirements of the jobs that the ALJ found Claimant could perform.

An ALJ may determine residual functional capacity without another expert medical opinion when later evidence does not materially change the claimant's ability to function at work.

RYAN v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-03-14(a)

The Court finds that James' November 2021 treatment notes, Dr. Davis' January 2022 letter, and James' hearing testimony were not so significant that the ALJ needed to solicit an additional expert medical opinion before determining James' RFC.

A residual functional capacity determination need not be supported by a specific medical opinion.

Schaefer v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-15

As such, there is no requirement that a residual-functional-capacity determination “be supported by a specific medical opinion.”

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from all relevant evidence; the finding need not match a medical opinion.

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

An ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC based on all the relevant evidence in the record. ... He was not obligated to base the RFC on a medical opinion, and he did not automatically assume the role of a medical expert when he adopted an RFC that was less restrictive than the opinions of record.

An RFC assessment can be supported by substantial evidence without a medical opinion expressly addressing the claimant’s functional capacity.

Kimani v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-18

But it does not follow that an RFC finding, to be supported by substantial evidence, must be supported by a medical opinion expressly addressing a person’s functional capacity, or that the ALJ otherwise was legally required to revert to Dr. Valarao for further findings with regard to Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) does not require an ALJ to obtain further medical expert opinions merely because the ALJ discounts a treating or examining source opinion.

Fritz v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-07(a)(3)

However, Laura F. incorrectly asserts that the ALJ has a duty to obtain further medical expert opinions if the ALJ discounts the treating or examining source opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) does not require an ALJ to obtain a medical opinion before assessing residual functional capacity.

Monzon v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-15(a)(3)

This is because, the SSI regulations—including on RFC assessments, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3)—make no requirement of obtaining a medical opinion.

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity from the relevant record evidence without obtaining an additional medical opinion when the existing record is sufficient.

Leos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-26(a)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ was not required to seek an additional medical opinion based on the record in this case.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to determine residual functional capacity from the full record without obtaining a new medical opinion after finding existing opinions unpersuasive.

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

In addition to finding that the Deskin rule does not apply, the Court declines to follow the rule for two reasons: (1) the contradictory scenario discussed above presented by the ALJ's finding of greater protections for Plaintiff; and (2) as reflected in her detailed and comprehensive opinion, the ALJ's careful consideration of the entire record in determining the RFC.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from medical records and other relevant evidence without a specific medical opinion supporting the finding.

Oleary v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-03-31

As an initial matter, an ALJ is not required to adopt or give additional weight to FNP-C Shoykhet’s and Dr. Shaw’s 2022 medical opinions simply because there is little medical opinion evidence in the record.

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity without obtaining a new medical opinion when the record supports the assessment.

(SS) Saetern v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-23

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has held that “[i]t is clear that 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 (2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545). ... Thus, based on the precedent outline above, it was not necessarily error for the ALJ to determine the RFC without obtaining a more recent medical opinion.

Section 404.1545 allows an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the full record without finding a medical opinion persuasive or adopting a physician’s assessment, if substantial evidence supports the finding.

Rater v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-02

There is no requirement that the ALJ consider or find at least one medical opinion persuasive for substantial evidence to support her RFC assessment. Nor is an ALJ required to adopt a specific physician’s assessment. Instead, the ALJ is responsible for weighing all the evidence and determining a claimant’s capacity for work.

An ALJ may make a residual functional capacity finding that does not match a medical opinion if the ALJ considers all medical evidence, appropriately analyzes the opinions, and reaches a finding consistent with the record.

Pladas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-31

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

Section 404.1545(a)(3) does not require an ALJ to obtain a medical opinion reviewing the majority of a claimant’s mental health records before assessing residual functional capacity.

(SS) Selzer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-11(a)(3)

“While it is apparent that comprehensive consultative examinations of records would be helpful to ALJs, the Court has not found any statute, regulation, or caselaw that establishes that at least one physician must conduct a metanalysis of the ‘the majority’ of a claimant’s mental health treatment records.” Scott T. C. v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:23-cv-01776-SAB, 2025 WL 227288, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). As in Scott T. C., Plaintiff has not provided the Court will any binding or persuasive authority for this position. Therefore, the ALJ did not err by not obtaining a treating or consultative opinion that had the benefit of the majority of Plaintiff’s mental health records.

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity without specific medical findings about the extent of a claimant’s impairments when the record supports the assessment.

Luna v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-08-29

In summary, the ALJ did not err in assessing Luna’s RFC without specific medical findings as to the extent of Luna’s impairments.

An RFC assessment need not correspond to a medical opinion.

Dixon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-19

And the RFC need not line up with a medical opinion.

Section 404.1545(a) permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the medical evidence and a claimant’s statements without a medical opinion, if the assessment is adequately explained.

Lindsey · filed 2026-03-16(a)

Here, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s RFC based upon the medical evidence and Plaintiff’s statements about his symptoms. (R. 14–17.) ... The court identifies no error in the ALJ’s explanation of the RFC assessment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); SSR 96–8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) does not require an ALJ to consider a service animal in assessing residual functional capacity when the claimant provides insufficient medical or other evidence of a need for it in the workplace.

Shue v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-04(a)(1)

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in failing to consider the service animal when determining Appellant’s RFC. We note that the medical necessity test, as adopted by the district court below, appears to be in tension with the requirement that the RFC be “based on all the relevant medical and other evidence found in the record.” Shelley, 61 F.4th at 347 (emphasis supplied); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). Nonetheless, we need not resolve whether the medical necessity test is, in fact, the appropriate test. Appellant’s claim fails in any event because she failed to present sufficient evidence -- medical or nonmedical -- of her need for the service dog in the workplace.

Section 404.1545(a) assesses limitations affecting what a claimant can do at work; an asserted need for a service dog must be supported by evidence that it affects work-related functions.

Soileau v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2024-07-09(a)

As the Commissioner correctly notes, Ms. Soileau did not establish that her dog Tank enables her to perform any work-related functions that she would otherwise be unable to do without the dog. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (stating that a residual functioning capacity assessment addresses impairments that “may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what you can do in a work setting”).

An RFC assessment does not require an emotional support animal limitation without evidence that the animal is medically necessary.

Bisignano · filed 2026-03-10(a)(1)

What matters here is that remand on this issue is inappropriate and unnecessary because there is no evidence in the record that Plaintiff’s emotional support animal is medically necessary.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to rest on supported functional abilities rather than speculation about improvement after future surgery.

Stafford v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-27

That said, an ALJ may not speculate on the outcome of a future surgery and the anticipated functional limitations that would result from that surgery when fashioning a plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) measures what a claimant can do with current impairments, without including limitations based only on possible future worsening.

Buck v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-29(a)(1)

The Court finds no error. A claimant’s RFC is the most that a claimant can do despite his or her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). In the case presented, it is clear that Dr. Tanley’s statements regarding what theoretically could happen if Plaintiff’s PTSD symptoms were to increase in the future are not statements of opinion regarding the most that Plaintiff can do given her current level of impairment.

An ALJ’s failure to evaluate or include temporary postoperative restrictions in an RFC is harmless when they do not reflect the claimant’s long-term functional capacity.

Rutledge v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-09-17(a)(3)

Because Dr. Dooley’s work restrictions reflect merely temporary, post-surgery restrictions that were not intended to reflect Rutledge’s long-term functional capacity, the ALJ’s failure to address the consistency and persuasiveness of the restrictions—and/or his failure to impose restrictions in Rutledge’s RFC based on the work restrictions—constitutes harmless error at most.

An ambiguous term in an RFC is not necessarily reversible error if the ALJ properly evaluated the evidence and the term’s meaning can be gleaned from the record.

Hodgdon v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-23

An ALJ’s use of an ambiguous or vague term when formulating the RFC is not necessarily reversible error by itself. If the ALJ has properly evaluated Plaintiff’s symptom testimony and other evidence in the record such that the meaning of an ambiguous or vague term can be gleaned, then substantial evidence will have supported the ALJ’s finding.

An RFC must account for whether medically necessary treatment affects a claimant’s ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

RODRIGUEZ · filed 2026-03-26(b), (c)

As set out above, the RFC measures a claimant’s ability to do sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work setting “on a regular and continuing basis,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b) and (c) (emphasis added). ... However, she omitted any reference to Plaintiff's extensive medical appointments throughout the relevant time period at issue, and failed to address how these frequent appointments would affect Plaintiffs ability to work. This failure requires remand.

Section 404.1545(a) does not require an RFC assessment to account for time spent attending medical appointments.

Spivey v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-26(a)

Binding precedent is clear that the ALJ was not required to consider Plaintiffs attendance at medical appointments in assessing his RFC.

Residual functional capacity concerns functional limitations from medically determinable impairments; the number of medical appointments alone is not a functional limitation.

Red's Health and Wellness LLC v. LeafLink Inc · filed 2023-11-20(a)(1)

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

An RFC need not address a claimant’s inability to drive when driving concerns travel to work and the identified jobs do not require it.

Howard · filed 2025-12-02(a)(1)

As stated by the Commissioner, travel factors, including a claimant’s ability to drive, are generally not relevant to the disability determination. ... The Court, therefore, finds no error with ALJ Collins’ failure to discuss Claimant’s inability to drive in the RFC analysis.

An RFC restriction to simple instructions can account for moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace when the ALJ connects that restriction to the claimant’s symptoms and supporting evidence.

Costin · filed 2025-12-03(a)

Because of the interplay of the anxiety on her ability to maintain concentration, persistence, or pace, and the ALJ’s previous explanation and support of that interplay, the RFC limiting Costin to “simple instructions” properly accounts for her moderate limitation.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to account for functional limitations supported by the record; an ALJ may omit a claimed limitation when supported reasons justify discounting it.

Meyers · filed 2026-01-26(a)

Plaintiff’s front-line position is that the RFC — by failing to include a limitation for off-task time for toileting with assistance — is not supported by substantial evidence. The Court disagrees.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do in a work setting despite physical and mental limitations and must include all limitations supported by the medical record.

BOWERS · filed 2026-01-26

The RFC is an indication of the most that the claimant can do in a work setting despite his mental and physical limitations, and must incorporate all of the claimant's limitations supported by the medical record.

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

Gray · filed 2026-02-20(a)(1)

Like in John A., the ALJ failed to explain how the evidence—evidence he concluded shows multiple moderate limitations—translates into a determination that Plaintiff would be able to concentrate, persist, and maintain pace for only two hours at a time.

An RFC assessment need only include limitations the ALJ finds credible and supported by substantial evidence.

Scales · filed 2026-02-25(a)(1)

The ALJ’s RFC need only include those limitations found credible and supported by substantial evidence. ... The ALJ did not err in assessing Plaintiff’s RFC; therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to remand on this issue.

An ALJ’s RFC assessment must have record support for the standing and walking limits it assigns.

Phelan · filed 2026-03-12

Simply put, “there must be some support in the record” for the limitation imposed by the ALJ in the RFC assessment. ... Neither the ALJ in the decision nor the Commissioner here, however, “identify any support” in the record for the standing and walking limitation as set out in the RFC assessment by the ALJ (i.e., that Plaintiff can stand and walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday).

Residual functional capacity includes limitations the ALJ finds credible and supported by the record.

Brian B. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-03-13(a)

To that end, an ALJ “is only required to include in the residual functional capacity those limitations he finds credible and supported by the record.” Beckham v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-cv-576, 2020 WL 5035451, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 26, 2020) (quoting Lipanye v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 802 F. App’x 165, 170 (6th Cir. 2020)).

An RFC need not include a specific neck-flexion limitation when the record does not properly support that limitation.

Sorenson · filed 2026-04-23

While a medical opinion specifically proposing a limitation is not required in every case for that limitation to be “properly supported” and therefore require incorporation into an RFC, Turner, 613 F.3d 1222-23, the absence of an opined neck flexion limitation by any medical professional in this case is dispositive.

An RFC must include limitations supported by substantial evidence; a claimant’s need for breaks may require remand when the ALJ improperly rejects that testimony.

Hertel v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-05(a)

The ALJ erred in rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony that he needed to take breaks between activities throughout the day. In light of this, it is unclear whether Plaintiff could perform light work for 40 hours per week. This issue requires a remand to resolve.

An RFC assessment must evaluate how mental limitations affect a claimant’s ability to sustain work.

Emery v. Saul · filed 2020-04-15(c)

Upon review of the record, the Court finds that the mental aspect of the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence. Notably, there is no assessment of whether Plaintiff would ... be off-task, need breaks, or miss work due to her mental health symptoms, which include anxiety, panic attacks, paranoia, and mania.

A residual functional capacity assessment need include only limitations the ALJ finds to exist; it need not include alleged mental limitations that the ALJ and medical providers do not find.

Shari L. v. Bisignano · filed 2025-12-18

In the present case, the ALJ was not required to include in Plaintiff’s RFC alleged mental limitations the ALJ found not to exist that medical providers also did not find.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; an ALJ must account for supported limitations or adequately explain their rejection.

(SS)Cassidy · filed 2025-09-30(a)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a). ... Based on the foregoing, the ALJ’s failure to either provide reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to reject those limitations or to properly incorporate those limitations into the assessed RFC, constitutes error.

An RFC assessment must account for all medically supported limitations, including difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace that a restriction to unskilled work does not capture.

Yurt v. Colvin · filed 2014-07-10

As a general rule, both the hypothetical posed to the VE and the ALJ’s RFC assessment must incorporate all of the claimant’s limitations supported by the medical record. ... This failure to build an “accurate and logical bridge” between the evidence of mental impairments and the hypothetical and the mental RFC requires us to remand for further proceedings.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to account for mental limitations affecting work; limits to low-stress, goal-oriented work can account for moderate work-pace limitations.

Noyes v. Saul · filed 2020-03-09(a)

As discussed in detail below, the ALJ properly concluded that plaintiff's ability to concentrate is, at most, only moderately limited; consequently, to the extent that plaintiff argues the ALJ’s RFC determination failed to account for her work-pace limitations, her contention is belied by the express language of the RFC.

An ALJ need not use specific wording in an RFC to account for moderate or mild mental limitations if the assessment is adequately explained.

PORRETTA v. SAUL · filed 2020-05-12(a)

Further, the ALJ was not required to use any specific language in his RFC to incorporate the moderate and mild ratings of her mental limitations.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to account for all of a claimant’s mental limitations, including medication noncompliance that may be a symptom of a mental disorder.

Abelman v. Saul · filed 2020-12-30(a)

RFC is defined as “what [the claimant] can still do” despite his “physical or mental limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). Here the ALJ substantially erred by formulating plaintiff’s RFC without consideration of all of her mental limitations.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider limitations that affect a claimant’s ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Goad v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-22(a)

Next, the undersigned concludes that the ALJ’s RFC analysis, including her assessment of the persuasiveness of each of the consultative examiners’ opinions, is sufficiently specific and demonstrates that her RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 does not require an RFC assessment to include a mild mental limitation found under the paragraph B severity criteria when the ALJ considers its functional effect.

Ainsworth v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-16

Despite finding that Plaintiff had a mild limitation in concentration, persisting, or maintaining pace under the paragraph B criteria for severity, the ALJ was “under no obligation” to include limitations in these areas in the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to address a supported functional limitation when omitting it from the RFC could affect the disability determination.

Colling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-29

On remand, the ALJ must explain why he did not include Dr. Liu’s moderate limitation for overhead reaching in Plaintiffs RFC or, in the alternative, explain why his failure to incorporate such a limitation would not have impacted his ultimate disability determination.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to account for obesity in the RFC by relying on medical opinions that considered the claimant’s obesity.

Gonzalez · filed 2026-01-22

While the ALJ did not further discuss the Plaintiff’s obesity in the RFC narrative, any error was harmless because the ALJ relied on the opinions of the state agency medical consultants who also considered the Plaintiff’s obesity.

Section 404.1545(e) does not require additional migraine-related RFC limitations when the ALJ considers the relevant evidence and explains the RFC assessment.

Ray · filed 2026-03-24(e)

By discussing Plaintiff’s objective findings, her reports to treating providers, the efficacy of her treatment regimen, her activities of daily living, the prior administrative medical findings of the State agency medical consultants, and the medical opinion in the context of Plaintiff’s allegations related to her migraines, the ALJ built a link between the evidence and his conclusions. Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ did not violate 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(e), 416.945(e) and SSR 96-8p as Plaintiff alleges.

A moderate limitation under the paragraph B criteria does not require a specific degree of functional limitation in the residual functional capacity assessment.

Bisignano · filed 2026-01-23(a)

Thus, in this case the ALJ’s finding that Ms. J. is moderately limited in concentration, persistence, and pace with respect to Plaintiff’s Paragraph B criteria did not require the ALJ to assess a specific degree of functional limitation in the RFC.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite impairments and related symptoms, including pain, that limit work activities.

Bisignano · filed 2026-03-18(a)(1)

It is “the most you can still do despite your limitations,” taking into account “[y]our impairment(s), and any related symptoms, such as pain, [that] may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what you can do in a work setting.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; an assessment supported by substantial evidence may account for an impaired hand by limiting its use to frequent manipulation.

Merrill · filed 2026-03-18(a)

The RFC is an assessment of the most a claimant can do in spite of his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The ALJ’s assessment represents a rational interpretation of the evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations.

Bray · filed 2026-03-25(a)(1)

By contrast, an ALJ’s RFC finding is the ALJ’s ultimate determination of what a claimant can still do despite his or her physical and mental limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do in a work setting despite physical or mental limitations.

Valentine · filed 2026-03-30(a)(1)

The RFC is the most a claimant can still do in a work setting despite the claimant’s physical or mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir. 2011).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as what an individual can still do despite limitations caused by impairments.

Rutkowski · filed 2026-04-02(a)(1)

RFC is defined as “that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairment(s).”

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the relevant evidence; the RFC need not mirror paragraph B limitations found at step three.

Thompson · filed 2026-06-05

When formulating the RFC, the ALJ performs a more detailed assessment of all the relevant evidence, including the step three findings, plaintiff’s testimony, the medical record, and physicians’ opinions. ... Thus, the ALJ did not err because the RFC did not mirror the earlier step three findings.

Section 404.1545 defines physical ability in terms of residual functional capacity, which the ALJ determines from the evidence.

Dumas v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-06-22

The regulations define physical ability in terms of “residual functional capacity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (1982). ... Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Dumas retains the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work.

Residual functional capacity is what a claimant can still do despite limitations and includes consideration of mental impairments.

Margaret H. WARNER, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary, Health & Human Services, Appellee · filed 1983-12-14(a)

Residual functional capacity is defined as what the claimant can still do despite her limitations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (1983), and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental and other impairments.

Residual functional capacity is the work a claimant can still perform despite physical, mental, or other non-exertional impairments.

Root v. Heckler · filed 1985-03-26(a)

Residual functional capacity is defined as the type of work a claimant can still perform despite his physical, mental or other non-exertional impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment of what a claimant can do in a work setting despite limitations from all medically determinable impairments, considering both physical and mental abilities.

Coleman v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-05-24

A decision at step four or five requires a determination with specific findings regarding a claimant's RFC. That determination requires a medical assessment of what an individual can do in a work setting despite functional limitations imposed by all of his medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945. A claimant's physical and mental abilities are assessed in determining an individual's RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do in a work setting despite physical and mental limitations caused by impairments.

Williams v. Apfel · filed 1999-05-06(a)

Residual functional capacity is defined as that which an applicant can still do despite physical and mental limitations imposed by his impairments which affect what he can do in a work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

Residual functional capacity measures a claimant’s ability to work considering impairments and related symptoms, including pain.

Lawson v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-14

Because claimant always admitted that he could lift ten pounds, the ALJ’s conclusion that claimant was functioning below the sedentary level before September 4, 1994 must have been based either on the existence of disabling back and ankle pain or on claimant’s inability to sit for a long period without elevating his legs or standing up and moving around. See 20 C.F.R. § 440.1567(a) (defining sedentary physical exertion requirements); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (defining RFC as the capacity to do work considering one’s impairments plus related symptoms like pain).

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

Ranfos v. SSA · filed 2002-01-24(a)

To make this determination, the ALJ must assess both the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), that is, what the claimant can do despite her impairments, and the demands of the claimant's prior employment.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s ability to meet the mental and physical demands of jobs when assessing residual functional capacity.

Kukulka v. Barnhart · filed 2003-02-05(a)

The ALJ should consider the claimant’s ability to meet certain mental and physical demands of jobs when assessing his residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). The ALJ’s finding that Kukulka has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work which required lifting no more than ten pounds, had a sit/ stand option at his discretion and did not expose him to extreme temperatures is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a person can do despite limitations and uses it to identify the work the person can perform.

Alejandro v. Barnhart · filed 2003-09-11

This term is defined by regulation as what one is able to do despite his limitations and is used to identify that particular type of work that a person can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

Residual functional capacity is the work a person can continue to perform despite physical or mental impairments and related symptoms.

Gifford v. Comm Social Security · filed 2005-04-29(a)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2005), “residual functional capacity” is defined as any work one may continue to perform in spite of physical or mental impairments and related symptoms.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the work a person can still perform despite physical or mental impairments and related symptoms.

Acosta v. Comm Social Security · filed 2005-08-09(a)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a), “residual functional capacity” is defined as any work one may continue to perform in spite of physical or mental impairments and related symptoms.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations and is assessed using all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere ones.

Gonzales v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2006-10-23

"Residual functional capacity" is defined as "the most [a claimant] can still do" despite the "physical and mental limitations that affect what [the claimant] can do in a work setting" and is assessed based on all "medically determinable impairments," including those not found to be "severe." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... Considering the record as a whole, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to rely on Mauldin's assessment that Gonzales retained the RFC to perform his past relevant work as it is usually performed.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the ability to work despite physical or mental impairments.

Bayer v. Social Security Administration · filed 2014-02-12

Residual functional capacity is the ability to work despite physical or mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... A claimant who can perform light work can also do sedentary work. Therefore, these two medical opinions support the ALJ’s conclusion that Bayer had a residual functional capacity for a reduced range of sedentary work.

An ALJ may assess residual functional capacity using clinical records and daily activities when substantial evidence supports the assessment, even without a medical opinion supporting the claimant’s disability claim.

Kloiber v. Saul · filed 2021-11-23

In this case, Kloiber provided no medical opinion evidence which supported his claim of disability. ... This evidence, standing alone, was sufficient that “a reasonable mind might accept [it] as adequate to support a conclusion” that Kloiber could perform some light work.

Residual functional capacity assesses what a person can do at work despite limitations from all medically determinable impairments; the assessment must be supported by substantial evidence.

McCoy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-10

Residual functional capacity is a medical assessment of what an individual can do in a work setting in spite of functional limitations and environmental restrictions imposed by all of his medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945. ... Because the present RFC is based upon the ALJ’s evaluation of these opinions, it is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite limitations and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental impairments.

Koss v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-10

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

Section 404.1545 requires an assessment of the most a claimant can do despite limitations.

Fair v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-11(a)(1)

Having reviewed the entire record, the Court finds that the ALJ made a proper RFC determination based on a fully and fairly developed record.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite her limitations; an opinion describing only the least she can do may be discounted.

Myers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-25

The ALJ found that this opinion was “not very persuasive because it appears to offer an opinion based upon the least [Plaintiff] can do and not the most.” (Tr. 20, emphasis in original). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945 (Your residual functional capacity is the most you can still do despite your limitations.).

Section 404.1545 governs RFC assessments; an ALJ’s determination may be upheld when based on a fully and fairly developed record and supported by substantial evidence.

Stewart v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30

Having reviewed the entire record, the Court finds that the ALJ made a proper RFC determination based on a fully and fairly developed record.

Residual functional capacity measures a claimant’s ability to sustain physical and mental work despite impairments, using credibly established functional limitations.

ECHEVARRIA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-30

An individual’s RFC is the individual’s ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from his or her impairments. ... For the reasons discussed above in connection with this Court’s review of the ALJ’s obesity and fibromyalgia analyses, the ALJ’s RFC determination and hypothetical question captured Plaintiff’s credibly established functional limitations.

Section 404.1545 measures the physical and mental work a claimant can sustain despite limitations from impairments.

GOINS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-13

There is substantial evidentiary support for the ALJ’s RFC assessment, and the assessment will therefore stand.

An ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination is appropriate when the evaluations of medical opinions and symptom testimony supporting it are supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.

Barnhart v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-11(a)(1)

Because the ALJ’s evaluation of ARNP Luther and its credibility determinations are supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error, the ALJ’s determination of Plaintiff’s RFC was appropriate, and the Step Five analysis is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 makes the ALJ responsible for determining residual functional capacity, rather than the claimant’s physician.

Faulkner v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-13

“[I]t 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(a) allows an ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity with an occasional overhead reaching limit when the ALJ explains how the evidence supports it.

Melchi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(a)

The ALJ satisfied her minimal duty to articulate her reasons and make a bridge between the evidence and the outcome as to her RFC determination regarding Plaintiff’s limitations from shoulder pain, and the Court will not reweigh the evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the ALJ.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as a claimant’s maximum remaining ability to do sustained work in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis.

Guzman v. Barnhart · filed 2005-12-22(b), (c)

The term “residual functional capacity” is defined as the claimant’s maximum remaining ... ability to do sustained work activity in an ordinary work setting “on a regular and continuing basis.”

Section 404.1545(b) calls for the ALJ to consider physical abilities such as lifting, sitting, standing, pushing, and pulling when determining residual functional capacity.

Meehan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-10(b)

The ALJ makes this determination by considering the claimant’s ... ability to perform certain actions like lifting weight, sitting, standing, pushing, and pulling. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s impairments when assessing residual functional capacity and explain how the evidence supports the assessed limitations.

Sullenger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20

The ALJ’s failure to explain how the evidence, as a whole, and how the evidence he relied upon, led him to the limitations he assessedin the RFC, warrants remand.

Section 404.1545(b) directs the agency to assess a claimant’s physical limitations and ability to work on a regular and continuing basis when determining residual functional capacity.

Fox v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-09-30(b)

While the ALJ’s determination regarding Claimant’s RFC may be supported by the evidence of record, in failing to properly consider the medical opinions of Drs. Burns, Summers, Salekin, and Kennedy in relation to the full evidence of record, the ALJ has deprived the Court of the information necessary to make that assessment, which requires the Court to remand the matter for further development of the record.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s physical, mental, and other work-related abilities when determining residual functional capacity.

Cash v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-07-25(b)–(d)

Social Security Ruling 96-8p dictates that the ALJ in assessing a claimant’s RFC 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 assessment, the ALJ assessed all relevant evidence of Cash’s ability to do work-related activities, including her physical abilities, mental abilities, and other abilities affected by impairments.

Residual functional capacity is what a claimant can still do despite impairment-related limitations, and the claimant bears the burden of proving it.

CIRIACO · filed 2026-02-05(a)(1)

It was Shannon C.’s burden to supply the proof required to establish her RFC, i.e., what she “is still able to do despite the limitations caused by . . . her impairment(s).” Burnett, 220 F.3d at 121 (citation modified); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); see also Smith, 631 F.3d at 634.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) places the burden on the claimant to establish the extent of their alleged limitations.

Bisignano · filed 2026-03-13(a)(3)

It is the claimant who bears the burden of establishing the extent of their alleged limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); Mosconas v. Saul, No. 19-2049, 2020 WL 6255298, at *1 (1st Cir. Sept. 15, 2020).

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from the relevant evidence without adopting a medical source’s opinion exactly.

Castro v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-18(a)(1), (3)

The RFC determination, however, does not need to “perfectly correspond with any of the opinions of medical sources[.]” Matta v. Astrue, 508 F. App’x 53, 56 (2d Cir. 2013).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider medical opinions and functional limitations when assessing residual functional capacity; a nonexamining physician’s opinion carries less weight when the physician lacked relevant later medical records.

Nickels v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-31(a)(1), (a)(4)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers any medical opinions and claimant’s degree of functional limitation. 20 CFR § 404.1545(a)(1), (4). ... The court finds the ALJ erred by affording great weight to the opinion of the consulting state agency physicians. “[T]he opinion of a non-examining consulting physician is afforded less weight if the consulting physician did not have access to relevant medical records, including relevant medical records made after the date of evaluation.”

An RFC assessment may be upheld without an explicit function-by-function analysis when the ALJ adequately evaluates the claimant’s abilities and limitations.

Mallen v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-08(a)(1)

In recognition of Plaintiff’s serious but not disabling impairments, the ALJ limited Plaintiff’s RFC to sedentary work with certain limitations. This conclusion was predicated on a thorough balancing of Plaintiff’s abilities and limitations. The ALJ thus committed no legal error.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess the most a claimant can do despite her impairments based on all relevant evidence.

Kendrick v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-08(a)(1), (a)(3)

The RFC is an administrative finding, based on all relevant evidence, that an ALJ makes as to the most a claimant can do despite her impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), (a)(3), 404.1546(c).

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of a claimant’s reported pain when assessing residual functional capacity, but the claimant must provide objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably produce the alleged level of pain.

Weary v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-15

While an ALJ must take into account a claimant’s subjective allegations of pain in determining her residual functional capacity, the claimant must produce objective medical evidence of a condition that reasonably could be expected to produce the level of pain alleged.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; carrying out that duty does not amount to rendering a medical opinion.

Kartje v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-05(a)(3)

The ALJ is specifically charged to “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), and to evaluate medical opinion evidence according to applicable regulatory standards, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The discharge of these regulatory duties is not tantamount to rendering a medical opinion.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite her impairments; an ALJ must address testimony about symptoms that could prevent her from working.

Plessinger v. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1997-06-30(a)

Having properly concluded that Plessinger did not meet a listed impairment, the ALJ was next required to determine whether she had the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform her prior work. ... However, in that her testimony if believed would render her disabled, he could not simply ignore it and only rely upon the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess what a claimant can still do despite limitations, based on the entire record.

Viveiros v. Colvin · filed 2018-06-20(a)

Therefore, the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Syme’s opinions in reaching a RFC determination that is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires residual functional capacity to reflect the most a claimant can do despite limitations, based on all relevant evidence.

Cooper v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2019-09-06(a)

RFC is the most a person can do despite that person’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It is assessed using all relevant evidence in the record. Id. ... The Court finds the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence and requires remand to further develop the record and further consider Plaintiff’s maximum RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence; the finding need not match a medical source’s opinion.

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

This Court is satisfied that the ALJ did not substitute his lay opinion for those of Plaintiff's doctors, but rather, properly weighed the evidence as a whole when making the RFC determination.

An RFC assessment considers the claimant’s medically determinable impairments and identifies the work-related functions the claimant can perform despite them.

Knight v. Saul · filed 2020-02-12(a)

RFC “refers to a claimant’s capabilities despite her impairments.” Lawrence v. Saul, 941 F.3d 140, 141 n.2 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). ... Thus, the ALJ conducted a proper RFC analysis.

An ALJ may account for memory difficulties in a residual functional capacity assessment by limiting the claimant to unskilled work, even if the medical source did not prescribe that restriction.

Kobs v. Saul · filed 2020-07-30(a)(1)

Accordingly, the court agrees with the ALJ that, even though Dr. King never gave a restriction to unskilled work, Kobs’s memory issues identified by Dr. King were adequately addressed in the RFC.

Section 404.1545 calls for an assessment of what a claimant can still do despite limitations, based on relevant medical and other evidence.

Avila v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-07(a)(1)

First, the ALJ considers all of the relevant medical and other evidence and determines what is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [her physical and mental] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... The Court finds that the narrative satisfies the ALJ’s duty to explain the RFC and that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Cain v. Saul · filed 2020-10-02(a)

The RFC is defined as what the claimant can do despite his or her limitations and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). ... However, this Court finds the RFC is well-supported in law and fact.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess the most a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations, with an assessment supported by substantial evidence.

Gross v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-07

However, if a listing is not met or equaled, then in between steps three and four, the ALJ must then assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity, which is defined as the most a person can do despite any physical and mental limitations that may affect what can be done in a work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... Overall, the ALJ’s assessment of Mr. Gross’ subjective symptoms, assistive device, extreme obesity, and activities of daily living is not supported by substantial evidence and requires remand.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can still do despite physical or mental limitations, assessed using all relevant evidence.

Kelly v. Saul · filed 2021-09-08(a)

RFC is defined as “what [the claimant] can still do” despite his “physical or mental limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... Here, the ALJ properly formulated plaintiff’s RFC only after evaluating his subjective symptoms and discussing the relevant evidence, including his testimony, the medical evidence, and his daily activities.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations and calls for its assessment based on the medical and non-medical evidence as a whole.

Krontz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-03(a)(1), (3)

The RFC describes the most a claimant can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2 (July 2, 1996). ... Substantial evidence supports this finding.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can do despite limitations, so an ALJ may use a physician’s broader assessment when the physician also describes a narrower ability.

(SS) Corwin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-06(a)(1)

The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [his or her] limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... Even assuming the former is more restrictive than the latter, Defendant cites persuasive authority holding that an ALJ should read the two statements cumulatively when formulating the RFC, given that the RFC is the most an individual can do, not the least.

An ALJ may assess medical evidence to determine residual functional capacity without adopting a medical opinion’s exact limitations.

Barker v. Saul · filed 2021-03-08

Moreover, contrary to Barker’s argument, this sort of routine assessment of the medical evidence does not constitute impermissible “playing doctor” but rather is an expected part of an ALJ’s duty to assess a claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity by considering the claimant’s physical and mental abilities, symptoms, and limitations affecting regular work activities.

Blisko v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-05-02(a)

The ALJ must determine an individual's RFC after considering her "physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomology, including pain and other limitation which could interfere with work activities on a regular continuing basis."

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using the evidence as a whole and to reflect the claimant’s functional limitations.

Graf v. Saul · filed 2022-03-04

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

Residual functional capacity reflects what a claimant can still do based on the whole record; adding a severe diagnosis does not by itself require a different assessment.

GREEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-21(a)(1)

The ALJ must look at the record as a whole and assess the functional capacity of the claimant regardless of her specific diagnoses. I find that ALJ West did so and thus that the RFC was supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations, and its assessment must account for limitations during the relevant period.

Evans v. Saul · filed 2022-09-20(a)

A claimant’s residual functional capacity refers to the most the claimant can still do despite his limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a) (2021). ... That being the case, I cannot find that the ALJ’s finding that Evans could perform frequent fingering for the entire relevant period is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite limitations; the assessment considers relevant evidence of those limitations.

Burton v. Saul · filed 2022-09-30

RFC is “the most [a claimant] can do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... The Court finds that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Section 404.1545 permits the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using the record as a whole and to omit a proposed limitation that lacks supporting evidence.

Chandler v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-07

Because “[t]he ALJ is solely responsible for determining a claimant’s RFC, including whether to accept or reject medical opinions on a claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities”, she was free to discount SAPC Tendler’s opinion about occasional absences based on a lack of supporting medical evidence of record.

An ALJ assesses residual functional capacity using the relevant medical and other evidence, and need not add limitations that the record does not support.

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-08(a)(1), (a)(4)

Upon consideration of the ALJ’s decision, the court finds that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, formulated her RFC in accordance with the applicable regulations and adequately considered the evidence of record and Plaintiff’s medical condition as a whole.

An ALJ may base a residual functional capacity assessment on supported portions of medical opinions given less than controlling weight when the assessment reflects the record evidence.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-28(a)

On this record, I find that the ALJ appropriately based his RFC determination on record evidence, including the several opinions in the record, and did not base the RFC upon his own lay interpretation of the medical evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments supported by the record, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

PARROTTA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-24(a)(2)

In sum, the ALJ appropriately considered the entirety of the record, including medical reports, Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, and the third-party function report. As such, I find the ALJ’s RFC determination that Plaintiff could perform sedentary work was based on substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but mild mental limitations do not necessarily require additional restrictions.

Smith v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-05-10(a)(2)

The relevant regulations and Fourth Circuit caselaw do not support Plaintiff’s position that the ALJ was required to include additional limitations in Plaintiff’s RFC to accommodate her mild mental limitations. ... Because the ALJ adequately considered Plaintiff’s mild mental limitation in the RFC in compliance with the regulations and Fourth Circuit law, remand is not warranted.

An RFC assessment must consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe.

GWALDIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-05-31(a)(2)

The ALJ considers all impairments in this analysis, not just those deemed severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2); SSR 96-8p.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider limitations from all of a claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe.

Gonzalez-Dominicci v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-22(a)(2)

The ALJ’s election not to discuss or assign any work-related limitations in the RFC based upon these ... impairments cannot be upheld as supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity must account for limitations from all of a claimant’s impairments, including impairments found non-severe.

Greaves v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-27

Whether fibromyalgia is designated as a severe or non-severe impairment, the ALJ must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments when formulating the RFC.