20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider limitations from all of a claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe.

Arnold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ “must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’” SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184 at *5; see also Swindle v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 222, 226 (11th Cir. 1990) (stating that “the ALJ must consider a claimant’s impairments in combination”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; Reeves v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 519, 525 (11th Cir. 1984)).

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

Watkins v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-02(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.

Section 404.1545(e) requires consideration of the limiting effects of all impairments, including those that are not severe, when determining residual functional capacity.

Celaya v. William S. Halter, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2003-06-17(e)

It is precisely when a condition falls short of the criterion, as here, that such an analysis is appropriate. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B) ("In determining whether an individual's... impairments are of sufficient medical severity that such ... could be the basis of eligibility under this section, the Secretary shall consider the combined effect of all the individual's impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of such severity."), 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(e), 416.945(e) ("we will consider the limiting effects of all your impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining your residual functional capacity.").

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s impairments and symptoms when assessing residual functional capacity.

Averweg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-12(a)(2)

An ALJ must consider all of a claimant's impairments and symptoms and the extent to which they are consistent with the objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2)(3). ... The Court finds that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s treatment of the ME opinion and therefore the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require consideration of impairments that are not medically established.

Brihn v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-16(a)(2)

An ALJ has no obligation to discuss residual functional capacity in light of impairments that are not medically established.

An RFC assessment must include all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments.

DeWitt v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-02(a)(2)

RFC represents “the most [that the claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), and must include “all of [the claimant’s] medically determinable impairments,” see id. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... Because the ALJ’s decision fails to indicate adequate consideration of DeWitt’s obesity in relation to her other impairments and her RFC, we cannot affirm the denial of benefits.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Bracken v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-01(a)(1)

The ALJ should consider all impairments, even if they are non-severe, in the RFC analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (“We will assess your residual functional capacity based on all the relevant evidence in your case record.”) (emphasis added).

An RFC assessment must consider limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Gilbert v. Saul · filed 2020-02-04(a)(2)

In assessing an RFC, the ALJ “must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’”

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments and relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Rutherford v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-21

The RFC reflects the most an individual can do. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. 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. ... By failing to incorporate all of Plaintiff’s limitations into the RFC and, by extension, the dispositive hypothetical question posed to the VE, the ALJ’s conclusion lacks evidentiary support.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Espinoza v. O'Malley · filed 2020-09-09(a)(2)

In determining the claimant’s RFC, the decisionmaker considers all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those considered not “severe.” See § 404.1545(a)(2). ... With regard to both Mr. E’s need for bathroom breaks and his access, the court finds substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC assessment and finds her reasoning to be sufficiently clear.

An RFC assessment must account for functional limitations from all impairments, including those that are not severe.

Dwight D. D. v. Saul · filed 2020-09-30(a)(1)-(2), (e)

An RFC must include an individual’s functional limitations or restrictions as a result of all of his impairments -- even those that are not severe (see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)-(2), (e)) -- and must assess his “work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis.” ... These determinations lack the support of substantial evidence.

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

Kenyon v. Saul · filed 2021-05-19(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. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider how all impairments affect a claimant’s ability to perform work-related tasks.

Bickmeyer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-20(a)

A claimant’s RFC is the most that the claimant can do after considering the effects of all impairments on the ability to perform work-related tasks. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a). ... As set forth above, on remand, the ALJ should consider whether additional limitations are warranted for unscheduled breaks and for being off task more than 25 percent of the workday.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Davies v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-28(a)(2)

In formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must account for all functional limitations resulting from the claimant’s impairments.

When a claimant has a severe impairment, the RFC must consider functional limitations from all impairments, including those that are not severe.

Rosado v. Saul · filed 2021-11-29(e)

In the instant case, the ALJ found other severe impairments at step two (A.R. at 66), and expressly stated that he considered the cumulative effect of all of Plaintiff's symptoms when crafting the RFC (A.R. at 70). ... Without showing that a functional limitation attributable to cataracts was omitted from the RFC, Plaintiff has not established harm from the absence of a severe impairment finding at step two.

An RFC assessment must account for all limitations supported by the medical record, including limitations identified in a medical opinion.

Petreikis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-24(a)(3)

The ALJ must account for all the claimant’s limitations that are supported by the medical record.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of non-severe impairments, but does not require every mild limitation to appear in the residual functional capacity assessment.

Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-15(a)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2), SSA will consider all non-severe medical impairments “as explained in §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521, and 404.1523,” which all require severity either individually or in combination. ... Here, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s mild mental limitations but ultimately decided not to include them in the RFC because the record evidence demonstrated that they were not severe, either individually or in combination.

A residual functional capacity assessment must account for the claimant’s limitations, including those caused by impairments found not severe.

Ardis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-18(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). ... While these limitations certainly relate to migraine headaches, without recognizing the real extent of the frequency and severity of them, the ALJ erred and the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence. Reversal and remand for reconsideration of the RFC is required.

An ALJ must consider all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but need not include a limitation unsupported by the record.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-19(a)(2)

In formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all impairments and the extent to which they are consistent with medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... Based on the ALJ’s acknowledgment and review of Ms. Torres’ shoulder impairment history and medical record, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to not include explicit limitations in the RFC related to Ms. Torres’ shoulder impairments.

Section 404.1545(e) requires the ALJ to consider medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments that are not severe.

Rodriguez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-28(e)

Because knee and leg pain constitute a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ was required discuss it and to evaluate the subjective symptom evidence pertaining to it.

An RFC assessment must account for limitations from medically determinable impairments, including impairments found nonsevere.

EBY-MANESCU v. SAUL · filed 2022-10-07(a)

The ALJ’s failure at the RFC stage to address the limitations arising from the migraine headaches, however, undermines the supportability of the RFC finding. We agree that remand is warranted on this basis.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Snyder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-10(a)(2)

The ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not ... “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2); Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1268 (11th Cir. 2019). ... Here, the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments, including any possible limitations from the side effects of Plaintiff’s medications. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination, in formulating the RFC.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider all of a claimant’s impairments and their limitations as supported by the medical evidence.

McKinnie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-09(a)(2)

In formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all impairments and the extent to which they are consistent with medical evidence. ... Nor does Plaintiff demonstrate reversible error in the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s obstructive sleep apnea in formulating her RFC at step four.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but a severe impairment does not automatically require a specific work limitation.

Kindred v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-01-22(a)(2)

Because the ALJ accounted for all of Plaintiff’s impairments in fashioning the RFC, the court concludes that the RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ did not commit reversible error.

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

Andre v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-31(a)(2)

Here, the ALJ adequately assessed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain and ultimately arrived at the RFC that is supported by substantial evidence.

An RFC assessment must address acknowledged mental limitations even when they do not satisfy the criteria for a listed impairment.

Cook v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-18(a)(2)

Here, even though Claimant’s “moderate limitations” were not severe enough to satisfy the Paragraph B criteria at Step 3, such limitations still should have been included in the subsequent RFC discussion. The ALJ’s failure to do so without explanation was error.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant impairments, including their physical and mental effects, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Lanford v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-18(a)

The ALJ’s lack of discussion as to Plaintiff’s diagnosed CPS leaves the Court unable to determine whether or how its physical and mental aspects were actually considered, as required by the regulations.

Section 404.1545(b) requires an RFC assessment to discuss the nature and extent of a claimant’s physical limitations, including manipulative and postural functions.

Pennington v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-01(b)

This includes a discussion of the “nature and extent of” a claimant’s physical limitations including “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping, or crouching).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for the claimant’s physical limitations and ability to perform work-related functions.

Laborgne v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-14

Accordingly, the Court concludes that remand is appropriate, and instructs the ALJ on remand to obtain a physical RFC assessment or medical source statement from an acceptable medical source concerning Plaintiff’s physical capabilities, in other words, assessing how Plaintiff’s limitations affect her physical ability to perform work-related functions. Further, in assessing Plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ should provide a specific rationale as to how the medical and/or opinion evidence supports his physical RFC finding and should explain the weight afforded the opinion evidence.

Residual functional capacity describes a claimant’s ability to meet work requirements despite limitations and must account for limitations supported by the record.

Werts v. Saul · filed 2023-03-03(a)(4)

It describes a claimant’s “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(4). ... The ALJ did not provide sufficient reasons to discount this evidence—especially the VA disability rating, which is entitled to “great weight”—and the RFC is therefore not supported by substantial evidence.

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

Fulton v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-15(a)(1)

Prior to Step Four, the Commissioner assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), which “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to account for the claimant’s limitations; improperly discounting symptom testimony and medical opinions can leave the assessment unsupported by substantial evidence.

Luckow v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-02(a)

A claimant’s residual functional capacity is the most he can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The ALJ’s error in discounting both Plaintiff’s testimony and Dr. Graham’s opinions affected the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC, which allowed for light work at step five. 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 measures residual functional capacity by what a claimant can still do despite her limitations; an assessment allowing frequent hand manipulation may stand when the ALJ considers the relevant evidence and substantial evidence supports it.

Maldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-26(a)(1)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, a careful review of the ALJ’s decision indicates that the ALJ considered all relevant evidence for each of Plaintiff’s impairments, including her carpal tunnel syndrome, to formulate an RFC that was consistent with the record as a whole.

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

(SS) Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-10(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(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis despite her limitations.

Harris v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-05-21(a)

RFC is an assessment of the most a claimant can do on a regular and continuing basis despite her limitations.

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

Garcia-Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-31(a)(1)

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

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite physical or mental limitations; credited medical opinions and the claimant’s reports may support the assessment.

Hoffson v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-18(a)(1)

RFC is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite” his or her physical or mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... The ALJ properly credited the opinions of Dr. McGraw and Dr. Fishburn, and incorporated the doctors’ posited limitations (and more) into both the hypothetical he posed to the vocational expert and the RFC he constructed. The ALJ further properly considered Plaintiff’s subjective reports. In sum, the ALJ did not err in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC and determining whether Plaintiff is disabled.

An RFC must be reevaluated when findings about a claimant’s limitations lack substantial evidence.

Tate v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-24(a)(1)

Having already concluded that the ALJ’s findings as to Ms. Tate’s bowel symptoms lacked substantial evidence, see, supra, Section IV.A, the ALJ’s determination about Ms. Tate’s RFC must be reevaluated.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires RFC analysis to consider only medically determinable impairments.

Saterlee v. Astrue · filed 2011-12-12(a)(2)

Having (erroneously) found, as a threshold matter, that no medically determinable hand impairment existed, the ALJ had no occasion to determine any associated functional limitation, as only medically determinable impairments are considered in the analysis of RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to formulate residual functional capacity by evaluating relevant medical and other evidence and weighing medical opinions.

Mokbel-Aljahmi v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-04-30

“In formulating a residual functional capacity, the ALJ evaluates all relevant medical and other evidence and considers what weight to assign to treating, consultative, and examining physicians’ opinions.” Eslinger v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 476 F. App’x 618, 621 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3)).

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

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-05(a)(1)

An RFC is an administrative assessment of what work-related activities a claimant can perform despite limitations caused by his impairments. Young, 362 F.3d at 1000; SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2 (July 2, 1996). In other words, a claimant’s RFC constitutes the most he can do despite his physical and mental limitations. Craft, 539 F.3d at 675–76; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). “In determining an individual’s RFC, the ALJ must evaluate all limitations that arise from medically determinable impairments, even those that are not severe[.]” Villano, 556 F.3d at 563.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to base a residual functional capacity assessment on the evidence rather than fill medical gaps with lay opinions.

Mann v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-25(a)(3)

This error requires remand and no further analysis. When an ALJ denies benefits, he must build an “accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to the conclusion,” Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir.2000), and he may not “play doctor” by using his own lay opinions to fill evidentiary gaps in the record.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires residual functional capacity to be determined from all relevant medical and other evidence.

(SS) Doreen Ann Burns v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-01(a)(3)

“In determining a claimant's RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record such as medical records, lay evidence and the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are ... reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.” Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883. See ... also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (residual functional capacity determined based on all relevant ... medical and other evidence). ... The ALJ fully supported her determination based on multiple medical opinions and the evidence of record.

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

Stone v. O'Malley · filed 2025-05-27(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).”

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

Casteneda v. Social Security · filed 2019-12-18(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). ... The ALJ properly considered the medical evidence in formulating Plaintiff's RFC.

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

Escobedo v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-15(a)(3)

The ALJ assesses a claimant’s RFC based on “all of the relevant medical and other ... evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see generally SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 ... (July 2, 1996). ... Given that Plaintiffs ... symptoms were “borderline to mild without cognitive decline,” discussed supra pp. 6-8, the ALJ’s inclusion of a 9 percent off task limitation is reasonable and reflects a rational interpretation of “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”

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

King v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-18(a)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including medical opinion evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires residual functional capacity to be assessed using all relevant medical and other evidence.

(SS) Vue v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-22(a)(3)

“In determining a claimant's [residual functional capacity], an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record such as medical records, lay evidence and the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.” Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (residual functional capacity determined based on all relevant medical and other evidence).

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider impairments and related symptoms that affect what a claimant can do at work.

Zeller v. Saul · filed 2020-11-20(a)(1)

An RFC assessment requires the ALJ to consider a ... claimant’s impairments and any related symptoms that may “cause physical and mental limitations that affect what [he] can do in a work setting.”

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

Riggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-25(a)(3)

The ALJ is 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 ALJ did not improperly decide what type of medical evidence was required, but instead “set forth his own ... interpretations and explain[ed] why they, rather than the doctors’, [were] correct.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity in light of the medical evidence as a whole.

McAdams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-02

Because the ALJ must reconsider these treating ... physicians’ opinions on remand, he must also reconsider Plaintiff's residual functional capacity in light of the medical evidence as a whole.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

de Sagal v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-05(a)(3)

An ALJ will assess a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

An ALJ assesses residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence and may consider medical-source statements that are not based on formal examinations.

Juarez-Ray v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-24(a)(3)

The ALJ is responsible for assessing a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the ... relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c); see Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883 (citing Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-8p (July 2, 1996), 1996 WL 374184, at *5). In doing so, the ALJ may consider any statements provided by medical sources, including statements that are not based on formal medical examinations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a), 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545(c) requires an ALJ assessing mental residual functional capacity to evaluate the claimant’s ability to follow instructions and respond to supervision, coworkers, and work pressures.

Martinez v. O'Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-25(c)

In particular, regarding the claimant’s mental RFC, the ALJ must assess his abilities to carry out certain mental activities “in a work setting” such as “understanding, remembering, and carrying out instructions” and “responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and work pressures.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c).

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s ability to meet the mental requirements of work when assessing residual functional capacity; additional pace restrictions are unnecessary when substantial evidence supports the chosen limitations.

Broadstock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-31(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). ... Because these conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ did not err by failing to include additional mental limitations in the RFC.

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

(SS) Buchanan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-25(a)

Residual functional capacity is the most a person “can still do despite [the individual’s] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a) (2012); see also Valencia v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (residual functional capacity reflects current “physical and mental capabilities”).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an RFC assessment to consider all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations from others, and the claimant’s own account of her capacity.

Stafford v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2025-06-25(a)(3)

An RFC determination is based “on all relevant evidence,” which includes medical records, personal observations from treating physicians and others, and an individual’s own evaluation of their capacity. 20 CFR § 404.1545(a)(3); Boyd, 831 F.3d at 1020. ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not commit reversible error in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as an applicant’s ability despite limitations and allows pain to be considered in assessing that capacity.

Phillips v. Bowen · filed 1987-05-18

Residual functional capacity reflects an applicant’s ability despite limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... Pain can be a factor in determining residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

Section 404.1545 requires the Commissioner to consider the effects of a claimant’s mental impairment when assessing residual functional capacity.

Atkinson v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-03

The Commissioner should reconsider also the effect of plaintiffs mental impairment on her residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. In addition, the Commissioner should reassess plaintiffs residual functional capacity in light of any new medical evidence relating to her seizure disorder.

Section 404.1545 measures residual functional capacity by the ability to perform work activities day in and day out; limited daily activities do not establish an ability to work.

Eula Forehand v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2004-04-26

We have long stated that to determine whether a claimant has the residual functional capacity necessary to be able to work we look to whether she has “the ability to perform the requisite physical acts day in and day out, in the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world.” McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir. 1982) (en banc). This test is consistent with relevant regulations on the issue, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545, and we have reiterated it on a number of occasions, see, e.g., Cox, 345 F.3d at 610 (restating McCoy standard); Wilcutts, 143 F.3d at 1137 (noting the “most important issue” in a disability determination is whether the claimant has “the ability to do the requisite physical acts day in and day out, in the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world”); Ingram v. Chater, 107 F.3d 598, 604 (8th Cir. 1997) (repeating McCoy test); Pope v. Bowen, 886 F.2d 1038, 1041 (8th Cir. 1989) (same); Martonik v. Heckler, 773 F.2d 236, 239-40 (8th Cir. 1985) (same).

Section 404.1545 governs assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity using medical evidence and descriptions of limitations on the claimant’s ability to work.

Jones v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-31

Residual functional capacity combines a medical assessment with the descriptions by physicians, the claimant or others of any limitations on the claimant’s ability to work.

Residual functional capacity must account for relevant medical evidence about a claimant’s work limitations.

Watkins v. COmmissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-02-09(a)(1)

The ALJ’s finding as to a claimant’s RFC is based on all the relevant evidence in the record, including any medical evidence, and is used in steps four and five of the sequential evaluation to determine whether the claimant can do her past relevant work or any other work. ... On remand, the ALJ must explicitly consider and explain the weight to be accorded to Dr. Feussner’s opinion as to how many hours per day Watkins can work with a sit/stand option, incorporate this finding into the RFC determination and re-examine, at steps four and five, whether there is work Watkins can perform.

Section 404.1545(a) calls for an RFC assessment based on the relevant evidence, including reported limitations and medical findings.

Wurst v. Colvin · filed 2013-04-15(a)

The ALJ first reviewed the relevant evidence in the record and acknowledged Wurst’s reported limitations, appropriately discounting his testimony (discussed above). Second, the ALJ properly accorded less weight to the opinions of Drs. Mytych and Bianchi because objective medical evidence, including Dr. Mytych’s own treatment notes, contradicted Dr Mytych’s assessment of ... Wurst’s ability to walk and stand as well as Dr. Bianchi’s statement regarding how frequently she had seen Wurst. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 404.1527(c)(2–3), (6); Hofslien v. Barnhart, 439 F.3d 375, 376–77 (7th Cir. 2006); White v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2005).

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity considers a claimant’s physical and mental abilities, symptoms, and other limitations on sustained work.

Donnelly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-07-11(a)

ALJ Raynor properly used substantial evidence when assessing the RFC. ... When the ALJ makes an assessment as to RFC, he should “consider a claimant’s physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomatology, including pain, and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). An RFC finding will be upheld on review when there is substantial evidence in the record to support the requirements listed in the regulations.” ... The Court finds ALJ Raynor properly relied upon these critical assessments by Dr. Kerness, Dr. Katz, Dr. Karp and Dr. Sulaiman in determining the Plaintiffs RFC, even though all but Dr. Karp were consulting physicians.

Section 404.1545(c) requires assessment of how a claimant’s mental impairments affect the ability to work.

Mercer v. Colvin · filed 2015-01-09(c)

In the alternative, at steps four and five of the sequential evaluation, there is no medical evidence which supports a finding that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to work day in and day out in the competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world.

Section 404.1545 permits an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using sufficient medical evidence together with other relevant evidence about the claimant’s abilities.

Thompson v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-30(a)(1)

This medical evidence is sufficient to support ALJ’s finding that Thompson can perform light work, particularly where other evidence in the record is consistent with the ALJ’s conclusions.

A residual functional capacity assessment must include limitations supported by substantial evidence, including limitations in adapting to work.

Gann v. Berryhill · filed 2017-07-28(a)

‘Residual functional capacity’ (RFC) is defined as ‘what [the claimant] can still do’ despite his or her ‘physical or mental limitations.’” Lauer, 245 F.3d at 703 (alteration in original) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). ... We find that the ALJ’s RFC assessment and hypothetical question to the VE did not contain all impairments supported by substantial evidence in the record, which means that the VE’s testimony is not substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite the limitations caused by her impairments.

Mullen v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-05-22(a)

The RFC is ... a measure of what the claimant is able to do despite the limitations caused by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... Furthermore, Dr. West’s expert opinion and medical evidence from the relevant time period, both of which indicated that Mullen had received successful treatment for her heart condition, constituted substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination that, as of the date last insured, Mullen retained the RFC to perform sedentary work.

Section 404.1545 requires a mental RFC to account for both the complexity of tasks a claimant can perform and the ability to sustain them.

Pitman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-05-30

Here, the ALJ crafted an RFC and step-five hypotheticals that addressed both the complexity of the tasks that Pitman could perform and her ability to complete such tasks over a sustained period.

An RFC may account for a moderate to marked stress limitation through restrictions on public contact, task complexity, pace, decisions, and workplace changes.

Hetelekidis v. Saul · filed 2019-08-22

For example, the ALJ limited plaintiff to work with “no more than incidental contact with the public. The work would need to be limited to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks in a work environment free of fast paced production requirements; involving only simple, work-related decisions; with few, if any, work place changes.” ... Moreover, the moderate to marked limitation opined by Dr. Caldwell is not necessarily inconsistent with the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite credible limitations.

Coleman v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-23

Residual functional capacity (hereinafter “RFC”) is a measure of what Plaintiff can do despite his or her credible limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

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

Loonsfoot v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-20(a)

In conclusion, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination is consistent with the relevant evidence of record including the objective medical evidence, the observations of medical providers, as well as the evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Residual functional capacity describes what a claimant can do despite impairments and takes account of all relevant evidence, including physical limitations and symptoms.

Royster v. Saul · filed 2019-09-27

RFC describes what a claimant is capable of doing despite his or her impairments, considering all relevant evidence, which consists of physical limitations, symptoms, and other limitations beyond the symptoms. See Martone, 70 F. Supp. 2d at 150; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.

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

Magness v. Saul · filed 2019-11-14(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). ... Based on a careful review of the evidence in the record as a whole, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Section 404.1545 requires a residual functional capacity assessment to account for severe and nonsevere impairments when evaluating a claimant’s ability to work.

Dukes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-22

The RFC is a holistic assessment of the claimant—addressing both severe and nonsevere medical impairments—that evaluates whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or other work in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

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

Kennedy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-06(a)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (an ALJ must consider all of the evidence and explain her decision so that it may be meaningfully reviewed.). ... In this case, the ALJ failed to explain how she considered the effects of Kennedy’s obesity and omitted explaining how she considered the aggravating effects of Kennedy’s obesity on her other medical impairments like her arthritis, foot, hip and back pain. This requires reversal and remand.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; a moderate limitation need not be included when the claimant can still function satisfactorily.

Price v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-11

In other words, given the definitions employed in Dr. Alvord’s “Medical Source Statement,” an assessed moderate limitation need not necessarily be reflected in the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945 (RFC “is the most you can still do despite your limitations”).

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite physical or mental limitations when assessing ability to perform other work.

Atkinson v. Bowen · filed 1988-12-20

To determine whether a claimant can perform other work, the Secretary determines his or her residual functional capacity, or what that individual can still do despite the physical or mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... While Atkinson may be able to tolerate a full day of work as an assembler, he is apparently physically unable at the present time to perform this task at an acceptable rate of speed or consistency.

Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can do despite impairments; an ALJ’s assessment may account for narcolepsy through work restrictions supported by the medical record.

Amos v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-12-12(a)(1)

Accordingly, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff could perform a modified range of medium work was within his “zone of choice,” as the ALJ reviewed the medical record and effect of Plaintiff’s narcolepsy in the RFC determination.

Residual functional capacity measures the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; the assessment need include only limitations the administrative law judge finds credible and supported by the record.

Louis Lipanye, Jr. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2020-01-29(a)(1)

An administrative law judge is only required to include in the residual functional capacity those limitations he finds credible and supported by the record.

Section 404.1545(c) requires an RFC assessment to consider a claimant’s ability to meet the mental demands of work.

Goldman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-03(c)

The ALJ considered the record evidence and the available medical opinions in determining Plaintiff's ability to perform the mental demands of work activity, and sufficiently described his findings. See id. at 20-28; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c).

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to determine what a claimant can still do despite her limitations, supported by evidence of her ability to function at work.

Baker v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-21(a)(1)

In this case, however, the record contained no medical evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform a limited range of sedentary work.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations and requires an assessment based on all relevant evidence.

Davidson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-04(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most an individual can do despite the combined effects of his credible limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to assess the most a claimant can still do despite limitations; the RFC finding must have substantial evidentiary support.

(SS) Dean v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-11(a)

Without physicians’ opinions to support the ALJ’s conclusion or evaluate Plaintiff’s need for a cane, the Court is unable to find substantial evidence supports the RFC determination.

An RFC assessment is sufficient when the ALJ assesses the claimant’s relevant work functions and substantial evidence supports the resulting limitations.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-11

Accordingly, this Court finds that the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s functional limitations and restrictions is supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ conducted an assessment of Plaintiff’s ability to perform the requirements of medium work and adequately considered Plaintiff’s right arm pain.

An RFC may account for a marked limitation in adapting or managing oneself through limits on task complexity, work stress, pace, and social interaction.

(SS) Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(a)

The ALJ included limitations to “simple and routine tasks,” “low-stress work,” “a relaxed production pace,” and “occasional interaction with supervisors and brief and superficial interaction with coworkers and the public.” (Id.) Plaintiff fails to explain how these limitations are not consistent with a “marked” limitation in the area of adapting and managing oneself. ... Thus, the Court finds the RFC identified by the ALJ encompasses Plaintiff’s marked limitation with the ability to adapt and manage oneself domain.

Section 404.1545 requires an assessment of work-related mental functions; limitations found under the paragraph B criteria need not be included in the residual functional capacity finding.

Anasco v. Saul · filed 2020-03-26(c)

The ALJ is not required to include any limitations in the “paragraph B” criteria when determining a claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; the assessment may be supported by medical opinions, objective evidence, and evaluation of the claimant’s symptoms.

Dickerson v. Saul · filed 2020-03-31(a)(1)

Based on a careful review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work, with several additional limitations, was supported by substantial evidence, including medical evidence.

Residual functional capacity is based on all relevant evidence, and an ALJ must explain the omission of limitations from a medical opinion given great weight.

Nowden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-13(a)(1)

The Commissioner reaches an RFC determination by reviewing and considering all of the relevant evidence. ... The court agrees the ALJ erred in failing to include the limitations without explanation.

In assessing residual functional capacity, the Commissioner must consider relevant evidence of limitations caused by impairments and symptoms, including pain.

Mahan v. Saul · filed 2020-04-23(a)(3)

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

A claimant’s residual functional capacity must reflect supported functional limitations in medical opinions the ALJ credits.

Burleson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-27

The RFC represents the most that a claimant can do despite his or her physical or mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... The Court cannot rely on the Commissioner’s post hoc interpretation of the ALJ’s RFC; the Court may only rely on the RFC itself, which contradicts the credited medical opinion testimony of Drs. Kaper and Boyd. ... Thus, the ALJ committed legal error in formulating the RFC.

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

Bechard v. Saul · filed 2020-06-09(a)(1)

RFC is defined as “the most [a claimant] can do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) allows an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity from relevant medical and other evidence when the record is sufficient without a medical source statement.

Hawkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-09(a)(3)

“We will assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... These and other records that the Commissioner has cited consistently documented a patient of plaintiff’s age (62 in 2017) with some chronic conditions but no developments that required interpretation and no developments that required medical source statements.

An RFC assessment must account for supported limitations affecting the claimant’s ability to work, including symptoms triggered by the presence of groups of people.

HARKNESS v. SAUL · filed 2020-06-15(a)

The ALJ accurately observed that Harkness’s hallucinations improved when she regularly took her medicine, but his RFC does not reflect an understanding of what an improved state looked like for Harkness.

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

LINDEMEYER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-06-19(a)

A claimant’s RFC “is defined as that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairment(s).” Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 359 n.1 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). ... Here, the ALJ adhered to his obligations in formulating a RFC for Plaintiff.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires residual functional capacity to be determined from all relevant medical and other evidence.

(SS) Longoria v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-29(a)(3)

“In determining a claimant's RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record such as medical records, lay evidence and the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are ... reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.” Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (residual functional capacity determined based on all relevant medical and other evidence). ... The ALJ fully supported her determination based on the medical opinions and the evidence of record.

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

Stell v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-07-21(a)(1)

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

Craig v. Saul · filed 2020-07-29(a)(1)

RFC is defined as “the most [a claimant] can do despite [his or her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... In sum, the ALJ’s analysis and explanation of the RFC is not “sorely lacking” in a manner that “frustrates meaningful review,” White v. Colvin, No. 3:15-CV-00197-FDW, 2016 WL 3381265, at *5 (W.D.N.C. June 14, 2016), and the RFC is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

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

Bass v. Saul · filed 2020-08-10

A claimant’s RFC is defined as the most a claimant can do despite his limitations, including both physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... Thus, the limitations in the ALJ’s RFC do not account for all the limitations proposed by Holmes.

The ALJ assesses residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence and may disregard a physician’s functional limitation that lacks support in treatment notes or medical records.

Collier v. Saul · filed 2020-09-08(a)(3)

This is because an RFC determination is one the ALJ must make, not a physician, and that task requires consideration of “all the relevant evidence,” not just one physician’s opinions.

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

Farnach v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-09(a)(1)

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

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

Reaves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-15(a)(1)

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

Section 404.1545(a)(3) generally makes the claimant responsible for providing evidence used to assess residual functional capacity, while requiring the agency to develop the medical history and arrange a consultative examination if necessary.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-17(a)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff argues that an additional consultative examination was necessary, the court agrees with the Commissioner’s contention that it is Plaintiff’s burden to provide medical evidence showing the severity of Plaintiff’s impairments and how it affects her functioning.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite limitations; the assessment may draw on all relevant evidence without matching a particular medical opinion.

Feldhaus v. Saul · filed 2020-09-18(a)(1)

Here, although the RFC did not mirror any of the particular opinions in the record, the record contained opinion evidence regarding Plaintiff’s ability to function from multiple sources. The ALJ properly determined Plaintiff’s RFC based on all of the evidence in the record, including opinion evidence.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations, and the ALJ determines it from all relevant evidence, including opinion evidence.

Muratovic v. Saul · filed 2020-09-22(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most a claimant can do despite her limitations.” Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). ... The ALJ properly determined Plaintiff’s RFC based on all of the evidence in the record, including opinion evidence.

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

Williams v. Saul · filed 2020-09-30(a)

The Regulations define RFC as “what [the claimant] can do” despite his “physical or mental limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC determination was based on substantial evidence.

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

PARROTT v. SAUL · filed 2020-10-14(a)(1)

The ALJ's RFC finding is consistent with the record evidence she cited, confronting the mild left-sided weakness that improved over time, as well as Michael P.'s issues with balance.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess what a claimant can still do despite impairments, considering the relevant evidence without adding limitations the record does not support.

Evans v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-14(a)

The ALJ was not required to incorporate more limitations in Evans’s RFC for her migraine headaches. His RFC assessment was supported by substantial evidence and was well within his zone of choice.

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

Mayberry v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-10-30(a)(1)

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

ZAVATTARO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-11-19(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most the claimant can do despite his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... The record unquestionably contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC determination.

An ALJ assesses residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence, including testimony, medical records, and medical opinions.

Cepeda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-24(a)(3)

The claimant’s RFC is determined based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence in the record, including the claimant’s subjective testimony, objective medical evidence, and medical opinions from treating and consulting sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... I therefore conclude that the ALJ's RFC formulation is supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the record as a whole.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite impairments; the assessment must be supported by substantial evidence.

Lopez v. Saul · filed 2021-01-11

The Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC assessment was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using the relevant evidence; an exertional finding unsupported by that evidence cannot stand.

Buie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-21(a)(3)

A plaintiff’s residual function capacity is “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... This conclusion is entirely unsupported by specific evidence in the record. ... The ALJ’s RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence; thus, remand is necessary.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when determining residual functional capacity, including medical opinions from workers’ compensation proceedings.

(SS) Cisneros v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-25(a)(3)

“In determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record such as medical records, lay evidence and the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.” ... Rather, the ALJ must evaluate workers’ compensation opinions just as he or she would evaluate any other medical opinion and must “translate” workers’ compensation terminology into Social Security terminology to accurately assess the implications of those opinions for the Social Security disability determination.

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

Gonzalez v. Saul · filed 2021-02-26

A claimant’s RFC is the most a claimant can do despite the limitations caused by her impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... Here, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s RFC determination, which is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence, including medical evidence, claimant testimony, and lay evidence, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Koengeter v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(a)(3)

The ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including medical evidence, the claimant’s testimony, and lay evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

An ALJ assesses residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence of what a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations.

Pabon-Mercado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(a)(1)

The ALJ appropriately considered the medical evidence and opinions of record in determining Plaintiff’s RFC regarding her mental limitations. His mental RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a) calls for an assessment of what a claimant can do despite impairments, based on all relevant evidence.

Sadakhom v. Saul · filed 2021-04-08(a)

The RFC is a measure of what an individual can do despite the limitations imposed by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). ... The ALJ supported her RFC determination with substantial evidence here.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence of a claimant’s limitations.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-29

The ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and the claimant’s own descriptions of his or her limitations. ... The ALJ then fashioned an RFC inconsistent with the treating physician and mental health providers.

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

Delong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-21(a)(1)

Rather, the regulations require the ALJ to assess a claimant’s RFC “based on all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” and further explain that such evidence includes objective medical evidence (i.e., medical signs or laboratory findings), medical opinions, medical history, clinical findings, prescribed treatment, and the claimant’s own descriptions of his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(1)-(5), 416.913(a)(1)-(5). The ALJ did so in this case.

Residual functional capacity reflects what a claimant can still do despite her limitations, and the ALJ must explain how its restrictions accommodate supported limitations from fatigue.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-29(a)(1)

Although the ALJ limited Ms. Thompson to simple work and few social interactions, she didn’t explain why these limitations would accommodate Ms. Thompson’s fatigue.

An ALJ must develop the record when assessing residual functional capacity, but need not obtain additional medical opinions when the existing evidence sufficiently supports the assessment.

Fowler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-16(a)(3)

But the regulations provide that the ALJ is responsible for developing the administrative record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(b), 404.1545(a)(3), 416.912(b), 416.945 (a)(3). ... Thus, because the decision to order a consultative examination or medical expert testimony is discretionary and there is enough objective medical evidence to support ALJ Brock’s RFC determination, ALJ Brock did not err in concluding additional medical opinions were not necessary.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as what a claimant can do despite physical and mental limitations; the assessment must address material conflicts in the evidence.

Post v. Saul · filed 2021-09-24

RFC is what a claimant can do despite his or her limitations and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... The ALJ did not properly discuss how the evidence supported Dr. Jung’s RFC conclusions and failed to resolve material inconsistencies between his opinion and the evidence in the record.

An ALJ errs in formulating residual functional capacity by giving great weight to a state agency single decision maker’s lay opinion when other evidence does not independently support the assessment.

Wagner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-24(a)(1)

The ALJ committed legal error in affording the state agency single decision maker “great weight” and in relying on the opinion to formulate Plaintiff’s RFC.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations; an ALJ may assess it from the record without obtaining additional evidence when the claimant presents no objective evidence of alleged physical limitations.

Northcraft v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-01(a)(1)

The Court agrees this case does not present an instance in which the ALJ needed to obtain more evidence about Plaintiff’s physical limitations.

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

Eaton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-12(a)(3)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers medical source statements and all other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... Instead, the ALJ permissibly considered the evidence in the record, including Plaintiff’s hearing testimony, self-reported symptoms, examination findings, medications, treatment history, daily activities, and opinion evidence, and determined appropriate mental limitations.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider how all impairments, including obesity, affect a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

White v. Saul · filed 2022-01-31(a)

Even though the ALJ found Plaintiff’s obesity to be a severe impairment and explained why obesity did not meet a listing, neither the ALJ’s RFC analysis nor the opinion evidence that the ALJ relied on mentions Plaintiff’s obesity, requiring remand.

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

(SS) Durham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-02(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [claimant] can still do despite [claimant’s] limitations.” and must be “based on all the relevant evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

An RFC assessment need not discuss every GAF score in the medical record when substantial evidence supports the assessment.

Thornton v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2015-02-11(a)(5)

Therefore, the ALJ did not err in failing to discuss all of Thornton’s GAF scores, and the RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity describes what a claimant can still do despite limitations, and jobs identified from an unsupported capacity assessment cannot sustain a denial of benefits.

Kendall v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-24(a)(1)

The Court finds that these job suggestions are inadequate because they are based on the two consultative examiners’ opinions, and not Dr. Wax’s and/or Dr. Titus’s opinions, which are a more accurate reflection of the record.

Section 404.1545 governs the assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity, the most the claimant can do despite limitations.

Valley v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-11

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

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

Haderlein v. Saul · 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.

Section 404.1545 defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can do despite limitations; the Commissioner assesses it before Step Four.

Enke 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.

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

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

A claimant’s RFC is “the most a claimant can do despite [the claimant’s] limitations.” Moore, 572 F.3d at 523 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). ... After careful review of the record as a whole, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC assessment was supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations, and its assessment must rest on a fully and fairly developed record.

Clark 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 must identify the highest level of work a claimant can sustain despite their limitations.

Poole v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-14(a)

In any case that moves be‐ yond step three of the sequential process we described earlier, the RFC ascertained by the ALJ must specify the highest exer‐ tional level the claimant is able to sustain. The RFC represents “the most physical and mental work a claimant can do on a sustained basis despite her limitations.” Mandrell v. Kijakazi, 25 F.4th 514, 516 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1545 bases residual functional capacity on all relevant evidence, including evidence of impairments that are not severe.

CLARK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-16

A claimant’s residual functional capacity is the most she can do despite her limitations and is based on all the relevant evidence in the case record, including her 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. Relevant evidence includes medically determinable impairments that are not “severe”. Id.

Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite limitations, and its functional findings must be supported by adequately explained evidence.

Mitchell v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-28(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is the most he can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... As more fully set forth below, this Court finds the ALJ never adequately explained the substantial evidence supporting his conclusion that Plaintiff could meet the lifting and carrying requirements of light work as determined in the RFC and, therefore, the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence and remand is required.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence.

Melendez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-28(a)(3)

A claimant's RFC is based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence in the record, including her credible testimony, objective medical evidence, and medical opinions from treating and consulting sources.

Residual functional capacity reflects what a claimant can still do despite impairments, and the ALJ must consider the record evidence when assessing it.

Holcomb v. Saul · filed 2022-03-29

Based on the ALJ’s comprehensive analysis and because he considered all the evidence of the record, the ALJ’s RFC assessment that Holcomb could do light work is supported by substantial evidence.

Residual functional capacity must account for limitations the ALJ finds supported by the medical evidence, including time off task and absences.

CAMARGO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-30(a)(1)

The failure of ALJ Merrill to integrate her own factual finding into the RFC requires a conclusion that it is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires residual functional capacity to be assessed using all relevant medical and other evidence; a physician’s assessment is unnecessary when that evidence is sufficient.

Ingle v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-04-11(a)(3)

In assessing Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ properly carried out the role of an adjudicator. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (“We will assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires residual functional capacity to be based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Whittaker v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-13(a)(3)

It is not based on a medical opinion but is instead based on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). ... For these reasons, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence and will reverse and remand for further proceedings.

An RFC assessment must consider all relevant evidence of the claimant’s ability to work despite her limitations.

Henley v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-04-29(a)(1)

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. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds remand necessary so that the ALJ can more fully and fairly develop the record regarding Plaintiff’s impairments.

An ALJ must assess residual functional capacity based on all relevant medical and other evidence.

Dearth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-23(a)(3)

The ALJ is responsible for assessing a claimant’s RFC based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using the full record, including nonsevere impairments and work-related limitations.

Osborne v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-26(a)

The ALJ failed to meaningfully address the regulatory requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945, and SSR 96-8p most notably in step two, step three, and the RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires residual functional capacity to be assessed using all relevant medical and other evidence.

Bowder v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-08(a)(3)

Certainly, the ALJ could consider that Plaintiff lived and performed heavy work with his back pain for 23 years, that he only received conservative treatment for his pain, and that a vast majority of his treating doctors found normal functioning upon physical examination.

Section 404.1545 makes the ALJ responsible for determining residual functional capacity from the medical evidence, including when medical opinions conflict.

Javier v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-11

“[I]t 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). ... The ALJ relied on the medical evidence in the record in determining Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.

An RFC finding may be supported by substantial evidence without a specific medical opinion.

Woods v. Saul · filed 2022-08-22(a)(3)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s suggestion, however, there is no requirement that an RFC finding be supported by a specific medical opinion, Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir. 2016), or, indeed, any medical opinion at all.

Section 404.1545(a) defines residual functional capacity as the most a claimant can still do despite limitations and bases the assessment on all relevant evidence in the record.

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-22(a)

The RFC determination is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite his limitations,” and is based upon all the relevant evidence in the case record. ... Because the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff had the RFC to understand and carry out simple and routine instructions in a low-stress, unskilled job is supported by substantial evidence, the Court defers to her decision.