20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Shoop v. Saul · filed 2020-02-02(a)

While an ALJ is required to consider even the non-severe impairments in a RFC analysis, she did so here, providing an assessment of the degree of Claimant’s mental limitations.

An RFC assessment must consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including non-severe impairments.

SWANEY v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-02-03(a)

As just mentioned, in determining an RFC at step five, an ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including non-severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(e) and 404.1545; SSR 96-8p.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to account for limitations from both severe and nonsevere impairments.

Peters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-18(a)(2)

Regulations and case law are clear that an RFC determination must account for limitations imposed by both severe and nonsevere impairments.

Section 404.1545(e) requires consideration of severe and nonsevere impairments in assessing residual functional capacity.

Lumpkin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-25(e)

Nevertheless, because the ALJ did find a severe impairment and proceeded with the sequential evaluation, all impairments, whether severe or not, were considered as part of the remaining steps.

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

King v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2020-02-25(a)(2)

At the fourth step of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, not just the “severe” impairments identified at step two. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

An RFC assessment must consider limitations caused by both severe and non-severe impairments.

MARTYAK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-03-02(a)(2)

In any event, the ALJ was required to analyze the limitations caused by both non-severe and severe impairments in constructing his RFC finding.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Alexander v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-03(a)(2)

The ALJ must consider even those impairments that are not “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when assessing residual functional capacity, including mild, non-severe limitations.

Barnes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-03(a)(3)

Even though the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s limitations were mild and non-severe, he was still required to consider them in the RFC, particularly because the jobs he recommended for Plaintiff demanded “skilled” or “semi-skilled” work.

An ALJ must consider non-severe mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity and explain how their limitations are accounted for.

Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-16(a)(2)

Rather, as addressed in detail above, the issue here is that the ALJ failed to account for plaintiff's mental limitations in the RFC, despite finding that she suffered from non-severe mental impairments at step two.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Bellardine v. SSA · filed 2020-03-16(a)(2)

Before moving on to the fourth step, the ALJ must use all of the relevant evidence in the record to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which assesses an individual’s ability to perform certain physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite any impairment experienced by the individual. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. ... Despite classifying it as non-severe, ALJ Stanley considered Ms. Bellardine’s narcolepsy as one of her non-severe impairments when assessing her RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Grant v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-18(a)(2)

Given that the medical records are replete with reference to and treatment for these conditions, even if found to be non-severe, the extent to which they would combine to limit her work capacity must be considered.

An RFC assessment must consider mild limitations from nonsevere mental impairments, but need not include a limitation when the ALJ considers the evidence and finds none warranted.

Alva v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(a)

Thus, this was not a case where the ALJ simply ignored prior findings of mild limitations made at step two; the ALJ instead discussed those limitations at step four in determining the appropriate RFC. The ALJ did not err.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for a claimant’s functional limitations, including those caused by an impairment the ALJ classified as nonsevere.

Allerton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-24(a)(1)

An RFC is the most a claimant can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1) and 416.945(a)(1). ... Ultimately, as the ALJ did not expressly consider Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome and related symptoms when assessing Plaintiff’s ability to work in the RFC determination, the ALJ’s failure to classify Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome as a severe impairment is reversible error.

An RFC need not include a separate restriction for mild mental limitations unless they are shown to restrict the claimant’s ability to work.

Ibrahim v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23

Regarding Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ should have included limitations in the RFC based on his mild mental limitations [Dkt. No. 24, p. 18-20], Plaintiff has failed to show he is entitled to relief. ... Plaintiff’ has failed to explain how these mild limitations are sufficiently restrictive to preclude him from performing work.

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

McKnight v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-25(a)(2)

But because the Court cannot discern definitively from the hearing decision whether the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments and any corresponding limitations before assigning Plaintiff an RFC without any mental restrictions, the Court finds error.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the RFC assessment to consider all medically determinable impairments, including those found nonsevere.

Boudreau v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(a)(2)

This is problematic because, as discussed above, the ALJ found Boudreau’s depression to be a nonsevere medically determinable impairment and was therefore required to consider the impairment in the RFC analysis.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity; omitting one at step two is harmless when the RFC analysis accounts for its credible limitations.

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-01(a)(2)

Moreover, even if the ALJ erred in excluding Plaintiff’s osteoporosis from the list of severe impairments, the Court finds such error was harmless because the ALJ clearly considered all of Plaintiff’s credible limitations throughout the RFC analysis.

An RFC assessment must consider non-severe impairments, but need not include physical limitations unsupported by the evidence.

FARY v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-03-27(a)

Next, even after finding these alleged impairments to be non-severe, the ALJ did not, as Plaintiff contends, fail to consider them in formulating his RFC assessment. Rather, the ALJ, again, noted the relevant medical evidence regarding Plaintiff’s alleged shoulder and spine impairments, but found that, as a whole, it did not indicate significant physical limitations.

An ALJ may consider non-severe impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

McCrea v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(a)(2)

An ALJ can consider such non-severe conditions in determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1545(e) requires an ALJ assessing a claimant’s ability to work to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including those that are not severe.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(e)

Once an ALJ finds that a claimant has at least one severe impairment at step two of the disability analysis, the ALJ must then “consider the limiting effects of all [the claimant’s] impairment(s), even those that are not severe” in evaluating the claimant’s ability to work at step four.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Taylor v. Saul · filed 2020-04-16(a)(2)

However, a finding of non-severity at step two does not relieve the ALJ from further considering an impairment when determining the residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(1)(5)(i). Even if the ALJ had erred by not identifying additional impairments as severe at step two, any such error would be harmless. The ALJ found Plaintiff had MS and continued with the disability evaluation. In that evaluation, the ALJ considered severe and non-severe limitations caused by Plaintiff’s impairments, including depression, anxiety, fatigue, memory loss, poor balance, and numbness. The ALJ specifically considered all these ailments in formulating Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1545(e) requires consideration of the limiting effects of all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Dempsey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-21(e)

Thus, as explained in Hedges, it was “legally irrelevant” that the ALJ did not find that Plaintiff’s diabetes was a severe impairment at step two, as the ALJ was required to consider the limiting effects of all Plaintiff’s impairments at step four.

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

FITZPATRICK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-15(a)(2)

The ALJ is required to assess all of Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments – even ones that are not “severe” - in combination when making the RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider severe and non-severe impairments.

HILE v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-04-21(a)

Thus, an ALJ will proceed to consider a plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments in the evaluation process in determining a plaintiff’s RFC.

An ALJ must consider limitations from nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but need not include a step-two limitation if it does not impair the claimant’s capacity for work.

Gardner v. Saul · filed 2020-04-27(e)

The courts have made clear, however, that, at step four, an ALJ is not required to include every limitation assessed at step two in the plaintiff’s RFC. Instead, the ALJ satisfies his obligations at step four so long as he considers every limitation assessed at step two to determine whether that limitation impairs the plaintiff’s overall capacity to perform work-related activities in a work setting.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider whether a nonsevere mental impairment and related symptoms limit specific work-related functions.

Williams v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-30

Finally, even when a mental impairment is properly found to be nonsevere, the ALJ must consider the extent to which the impairment and any related symptoms impact the claimant’s ability to perform more specific work-related functions (e.g., following directions, exercising judgment, responding appropriately to other people, handling stress) under ordinary workplace conditions.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Clevenger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-01(a)(2), (e)

Instead, the pertinent inquiry is whether the ALJ considered the “limiting effects of all [claimant’s] impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), (e); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.945(a)(2), (e).

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider impairments that are not severe, including mental impairments.

Marrow v. Saul · filed 2020-05-11(a)(2)

Even if the claimant does not meet both the paragraph A and paragraph B criteria, the ALJ must still account for the claimant’s mental impairments in the RFC analysis. In determining RFC, an ALJ must consider the entire record, opinion evidence, impairments that are not severe, and any limitations the ALJ finds.

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

Winter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-12(a)(2)

If an ALJ finds at least one “severe” impairment, the “ALJ still must consider the impact of all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments when assessing a claimant’s RFC” “[r]egardless of whether an impairment qualifies as severe or nonsevere at step two.” Boudreau v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 18-CV-6681, 2020 WL 1501752, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2)).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider the effects of non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Pierce v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-13(a)(2)

Though the ALJ found Plaintiff’s mental impairments to be non-severe, she was still required to consider their effects in formulating the RFC.

Section 404.1545(e) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider the limiting effects of all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Durbin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-27(e)

When a claimant has one or more medically determinable impairments that are severe, an ALJ must consider the limiting effects of all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, severe and not, when assessing a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e).

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

Henderson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-20(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)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Weller v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-21(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(a)(2) requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Jordan v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-22(a)(2)

Even assuming Ms. Jordan’s failure to see a counselor prior to her DLI supports the ALJ’s finding of non-severity, the ALJ was nevertheless required to consider and account for all impairments—including non-severe ones—in assessing Ms. Jordan’s RFC.

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

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-28(a)(2)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Section 404.1545(e) requires consideration of the effects of non-severe impairments when determining residual functional capacity; considering those effects can make a mistaken severity classification harmless.

Ardoin v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-03(e)

Although the ALJ applied an erroneous standard at step two when finding Ardoin’s heart arrythmias, right shoulder pain, low back and cervical pain to be non-severe impairments, he still considered the effects of those impairments on Ardoin’s ability to perform work-related activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e); Tr. 23-24. Because the ALJ considered the limiting effects of Ardoin’s non-severe impairments that he found to be consistent with the evidence in the record, it is inconceivable he would have reached a different conclusion had he classified the same impairments as severe at step two. Therefore, the ALJ’s application of the incorrect standard at step two constitutes harmless error.

Section 404.1545(a) requires consideration of limitations from nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require every such limitation to be included in the RFC.

Kavanaugh v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-12(a)

While the adjudicator must “consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe,’” in assessing the RFC, those limitations need not be incorporated into the RCF.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when determining residual functional capacity.

Turner v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-22

Federal regulations state that the ALJ will consider the limiting effects of all of a claimant’s impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity. ... Therefore, even though she found certain impairments to be “non-severe,” she still considered them, so (as stated in Emard) any error in the finding of non-severity is harmless.

An ALJ determining residual functional capacity must consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Alter v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-09(a)(2)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, 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).

An ALJ must consider the combined effects of all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, when determining residual functional capacity.

Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-18(a)(2)

Though the ALJ found Ms. Scott’s shoulder impairment to be non-severe in isolation, she was still required to consider the aggregate effect of her impairments and any limitations still caused by her non-severe impairments.

Section 404.1545(e) requires the ALJ to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Jeter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-07(e)

The ALJ must consider the limiting effects of all of plaintiff’s impairments, including those that are not severe, in determining his RFC.

Section 404.1545(e) requires the agency to consider limitations from all impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity after finding a severe impairment.

Alotta v. Social Security · filed 2020-06-30(e)

Indeed, social security regulations provide that when an applicant has a severe impairment, the agency “will consider the limiting affects of all of your impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining your residual functional capacity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to consider all known medically determinable impairments together, including those found not severe at step two.

BORCHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-07-20(a)(2)

Additionally, the RFC assessment takes into consideration all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments in combination, including those that the ALJ has found to be severe, as well as those that are not deemed to be severe at step two.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of limitations from non-severe impairments, but the RFC need only include limitations supported by the medical record.

Brown v. Saul · filed 2020-07-22(a)(2)

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

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

Vargas v. Saul · filed 2020-07-23(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 requires an ALJ to consider limitations from non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Weidner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(a)(1)-(3)

The regulations governing disability determinations clearly require that an ALJ consider evidence of non-severe impairments and any resulting limitations. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a)(1)- (3). The ALJ’s assessment of residual functional capacity must take all limitations into account.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when determining residual functional capacity.

Kancar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-04

The ALJ further should “consider the limiting effects of all [Kancar’s] impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining [her] residual functional capacity.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (emphasis added).

When assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider the combined effect of all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Mendez-Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-11(a)(2)

In assessing a claimant's RFC, an ALJ must consider the combined effect of all the claimant's medically determinable impairments, whether or not severe. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider relevant evidence of severe and non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity and explain their treatment in that assessment.

Book v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-14(a)(3)

The ALJ should analyze Plaintiff’s known medical impairments, both severe and non-severe, and explain why they are or are not included in the RFC.

An RFC assessment must consider all medically determinable impairments together, including those found not severe.

BLACK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-14(a)(2)

Plaintiff is correct that the RFC assessment must take into consideration all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments in combination, including those that the ALJ has found to be severe, as well as those that are not deemed to be severe.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to account for impairments even when they are nonsevere.

Mahler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-21(a)(2)

Even if Plaintiff’s obesity was not a severe impairment, it still must be factored into the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of even mild limitations when assessing residual functional capacity, both alone and in combination with other impairments.

Hill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-28(a)(2)

However, the ALJ is required to considered what effect even mild limitations might have on Plaintiff’s ability to work, both alone and in combination with her physical impairments.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider the limiting effects of non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Schultz v. Saul · filed 2020-09-03(a)(2)

When a Plaintiff has at least one severe impairment, “the limiting effects of all” Plaintiff’s impairment(s) are considered in determining a Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, including severe and non-severe impairments.

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

Jasper v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-04(a)(2)

In assessing the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are non-severe.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider the limiting effects of both severe and non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Walter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-04(a)(2)

Ultimately, the ALJ must base the RFC assessment on both severe and non-severe impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (“[W]e will consider the limiting effects of all your impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining your residual functional capacity.”).

An ALJ must consider all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Wroda v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-10(a)(2)

Indeed, an ALJ must consider all impairments, including those found to be non-severe, when assessing an RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of non-severe mental impairments in the RFC analysis; an inadequate discussion warrants remand when a fuller analysis could have produced functional limitations.

Gallegos v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-11(a)(2)

Thus, under Wells and Alvey, the Court does not reverse simply because it determines that the ALJ substituted a step-two finding for a comprehensive discussion at step four. The Court must find that the error is harmful in the sense that a comprehensive discussion at step four could have resulted in functional limitations in the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to consider medically determinable impairments, including those deemed nonsevere.

Vargas v. Saul · filed 2020-09-14(a)(2)

This is because, in assessing residual functional capacity, the ALJ considers only those impairments found to be medically determinable, even if not deemed severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). Consequently, a finding that Petitioner’s fibromyalgia was not a medically determinable impairment renders the ALJ’s purported consideration of “tender points” suspect.

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

BENEDETTO v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-28(a)(2)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all of his or her medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe. ... Accordingly, the Court thus holds that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ's RFC assessment and hypothetical questioning did not include Plaintiff's credibly established mild limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing herself.

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

SARDINA-GARCIA v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-28(a)(2)

Of course, even if an impairment is non-severe, it may still affect a claimant’s RFC. 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 (S.S.A.), at *5 (July 2, 1996). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(a)(1)-(2) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant evidence, including non-severe impairments, when determining residual functional capacity.

Medved v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(a)(1)-(2)

Such a finding is consistent with the Commissioner’s regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)-(2) (an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including non-severe impairments, in his RFC determination).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Kuehl v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-29(a)(2)

After carefully considering the evidence related to Plaintiff’s impairments, including the non-severe impairments, the ALJ made his RFC assessment. This demonstrates that the ALJ adequately considered the limitations attributable to Plaintiff’s back and elbow impairments, rendering any potential step two error harmless.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider an impairment when assessing residual functional capacity even if the impairment is not severe.

Morshed v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a)(2)

Even an impairment found not to be severe is entitled to consideration by the ALJ. Booker v. Astrue, No. 1:07-cv-646 (GLS), 2011 WL 3735808, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2)).

An ALJ must consider non-severe impairments together with other limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2020-10-06(e)

Nevertheless, a finding of non-severity at step two does not relieve the ALJ from further considering an impairment. ... The Court finds the ALJ erred at step four in his consideration of Plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to consider functional limitations from both severe and nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Lambert v. Saul · filed 2020-10-19(a)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all functional limitations and restrictions resulting from the claimant’s impairments, both severe and nonsevere.

Section 404.1545(e) requires consideration of the limiting effects of all impairments, including those found nonsevere, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Bolling v. SSA · filed 2020-11-04(e)

Instead, the pertinent inquiry is whether the ALJ considered the “limiting effects of all [claimant’s] impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity.” ... The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s mental impairments in assessing the record and crafting the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Berke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-20(a)(2)

Moreover, the ALJ considered the combined effects of all of Claimant’s impairments, including her nonsevere impairments, when crafting her RFC.

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

Platt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-23(a)(2)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider the limiting effect of all impairments, including those that are non-severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ erred in failing to properly consider Plaintiff’s mild mental limitations in formulating the RFC.

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

Miller v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-30(a)(2)

At step four, an ALJ is to consider all of a claimant's impairments and limitations, even those that are not severe.

Section 404.1545(e) requires the ALJ to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Montoya v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-05(e)

The Court agrees that when determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ is required to “consider the limiting effects of all [her] impairment(s), even those that are not severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e).

An RFC assessment considers all credible limitations, including limitations from an impairment found non-severe.

Mischke v. Saul · filed 2020-11-10

A claimant's RFC is the most an individual can do despite the combined effects of all of his or her credible limitations. ... In spite of the non-severe finding, the ALJ factored it into Plaintiff's RFC. There was no error in his determination.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments that are not severe.

MASI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-11-12(a)(2)

The ALJ considers all impairments in this analysis, not just those deemed to be severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2); SSR 96–8p. ... However, the ALJ considered all of these factors while assessing Plaintiff’s RFC and Plaintiff offers no additional evidence that the ALJ failed to consider.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an ALJ to consider non-severe impairments together with other limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Nam v. Saul · filed 2020-11-18(a)

Although the ALJ determined Plaintiff’s depression was non-severe, she must still consider it in combination with Plaintiff’s other limitations in her RFC assessment.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are non-severe.

Vaughn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-23(a)(2)

In determining the RFC, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, mental and physical, even those that are non-severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2); see also Craft, 539 F.3d at 676.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider medically determinable impairments, including mild mental limitations, in the residual functional capacity analysis.

Bateman v. Saul · filed 2020-12-28(a)(2)

When the ALJ determined Plaintiff had a limitation, that limitation should have been included in his RFC analysis.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, even if they are not severe.

Askins v. Saul · filed 2020-12-07(a)(2)

Here, to the extent that the ALJ erred in failing to find Plaintiff’s OSA a severe impairment, the error was harmless because the ALJ proceeded with the analysis and considered all of Plaintiff’s symptoms, including the pain, fatigue, excessive sleep, and insomnia which Plaintiff contends to be associated with OSA.

An RFC determination must consider severe and non-severe impairments; a non-severe classification at step two is inconsequential when the ALJ considers the impairment.

Wireman v. SSA · filed 2020-12-11(a)(2)

Here, the classification of Mr. Wireman’s diabetes and elbow pain as “non-severe” had no impact on whether substantial evidence existed because Administrative Transcript makes clear that the ALJ properly considered both Mr. Wireman’s “severe” and “non-severe” impairments.

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider the combined effect of all medically determinable severe and non-severe impairments.

Melloan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-06(a)(2)

Thus, once a severe impairment is found, the administrative law judge must consider the “combined effect” of all the medically determinable severe and non-severe impairments in assessing a claimant’s RFC.

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

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-11(a)(2)

The regulations provide that if a claimant has more than one impairment, “[w]e will consider all of your medically determinable impairments of which we are aware,” including those impairments that are not severe, in assessing the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... Accordingly, the Court cannot assure itself that the ALJ took this medically determinable limitation into account in formulating the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider all medically determinable impairments, including those found non-severe.

Velez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-15(a)(2)

In determining an RFC, all medically determinable impairments that a claimant suffers from are considered from the record evidence, including non-severe impairments and the claimant’s objective complaints. Id. ... Moreover, because the ALJ’s evaluation of this claim proceeded past step 2 and considered the effects of all of Plaintiff’s impairments through the remainder of the sequential evaluation process, any error that might have been committed at step 2 in determining the severity of her mental impairment was harmless and had no effect.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-19(a)(2)

Regardless of whether Plaintiff’s IBS was a severe or non-severe impairment, the ALJ was required to consider it when formulating the RFC. There is no evidence that she did so in this case.

Residual functional capacity must account for limitations from all impairments, including those found non-severe; failure to consider them is reversible error.

Trent v. SSA · filed 2021-01-19(a)(2)

Likewise, the ALJ here found Trent to have many “severe” physical impairments, but the ALJ failed to consider Trent’s “non-severe” depression and anxiety in any meaningful way when determining his RFC. The ALJ did not incorporate even mild mental limitations into his RFC or discuss Dr. Ford’s findings or Trent’s therapists’ treatment notes at step four. Therefore, “because [Trent’s] mental impairments were not otherwise appropriately factored into [his] RFC,” as required by SSA regulations, this is reversible error.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments not identified as severe at step two.

Bond v. Saul · filed 2021-01-12(a)(2)

Since the symptoms of Bond’s bipolar disorder were accounted for in the RFC, the court finds that the ALJ’s failure to consider her bipolar disorder at step two was a harmless error.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Love Wilder v. Saul · filed 2021-01-29(a)(2)

In making the RFC finding, the ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2). ... Whether the ALJ characterized an additional impairment as severe is inconsequential given that the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant’s impairments, both severe and non-severe, in assessing her RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) does not require an RFC assessment to include limitations attributed to a condition that is not medically determinable.

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-27(a)(2)

Lastly, as discussed supra, the ALJ did not err in finding that Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was not medically determinable, and thus the ALJ did not err in failing to account for limitations caused by that condition in the RFC assessment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

(SS) Carrillo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-02(a)(2)

Even if not severe, the ALJ should determine the impact (if any) of the ankle limitation on Plaintiff’s RFC prior to step four.

A medically determinable impairment need not receive further discussion in the residual functional capacity analysis when the ALJ finds at step two that it poses no restriction on work activities.

Wilson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-09(a)(2)

Because the ALJ found that asthma posed no restriction on Plaintiff’s work activities at step two, the ALJ did not err in failing to discuss it at step four.

Section 404.1545(e) requires an ALJ to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including those found nonsevere at step two, when determining residual functional capacity.

Winstead-Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-19(e)

That is because in determining a plaintiff's residual functional capacity and ability to work later in the sequential process, the ALJ must consider even the impairments found not to be “severe” at Step 2.

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

Piasecki v. Saul · filed 2021-02-11(a)(2)

An ALJ must consider all severe and non-severe impairments of which the ALJ is aware in determining the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

An RFC assessment considers all impairments, including those that are not severe.

ZAGARI v. SAUL · filed 2021-02-22(a)

Thus, an ALJ will proceed to consider a plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments in the evaluation process in determining a plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Shanahan v. Saul · filed 2021-02-16(a)(2)

Although the ALJ previously found that these impairments were not severe, he remained obligated to consider their effects in his separate assessment of Shanahan’s RFC. See § 404.1545(a)(2).

An ALJ must consider all impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

FREDERICK v. SAUL · filed 2021-02-19(a)(2)

I agree that an ALJ must consider all impairments, whether severe or not, in assessing a claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider severe and non-severe impairments together when assessing residual functional capacity.

Felicetti v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-23(a)(2)

Moreover, the ALJ properly considered and actually accounted for plaintiff’s visual complaints in formulating his residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2) (ALJ must consider impact of non-severe impairment in combination with all other impairments, both severe and non-severe, in assessing residual functional capacity); Grandusky v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 2722465 at *3 (D. Colo. June 6, 2018) (same).

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

Rodriguez v. Saul · filed 2021-02-25(a)(2)

“[r]egardless of whether an impairment qualifies as severe or nonsevere at step two, an ALJ still must consider the impact of all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments when assessing a claimant’s RFC.” ... Taken together, the Court cannot conclude based on the record that the ALJ considered Rodriguez’s ankle impairment at any stage in her analysis and, accordingly, remand is warranted on this basis.

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

Dailey v. Saul · filed 2021-03-01(a)(2)

When assessing the RFC, an ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, including those determined to be not severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(e) requires consideration of limitations from all impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Needham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-05(e)

The ALJ found plaintiff suffers from several severe physical and mental impairments, proceeded with the remaining steps of the sequential evaluation process, and ultimately addressed all of plaintiff’s impairments in determining his residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1545(e) requires the ALJ to consider limitations from non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Griffin v. Saul · filed 2021-02-24(e)

However, even if an impairment is found non-severe at step two, the ALJ must still “consider the limiting effects of all [a claimant's] impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining [RFC].” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(e), 416.945(e); ... Insofar as the ALJ erred by not considering Griffin’s depression to be a severe impairment at step two, he also erred by failing to make any accommodation in the RFC for Griffin’s depression.

An ALJ must consider the limiting effects of all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments found to be non-severe.

(SS) Kendall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-25(a)(2)

An ALJ must consider the limiting effect of all impairments, including those that are non-severe, in assessing a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2).

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

Hensley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-26(a)(2)

In determining the RFC, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, mental and physical, even those that are non-severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2); see also Craft, 539 F.3d at 676.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires non-severe impairments to be considered in assessing residual functional capacity.

McGowan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-01(a)(2)

Even if non-severe, these conditions should have been factored into the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to consider limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Thompson v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2021-03-05(a)(2)

When making an RFC determination, “the ALJ must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of [the] individual's impairments, even those that are not severe.” ... While he did not refer to the scarring by name, the ALJ considered Thompson’s history of back pain at great length in making his RFC assessment, and even acknowledged that her impairments “could cause some limitation of function.”

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC determination to account for functional limitations resulting from non-severe impairments.

Wieserner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-09(a)(2)

Because this Court has affirmed the ALJ’s findings concerning Plaintiff’s mental RFC, the ALJ need not re-assess Plaintiff’s mental impairments at step two, though he should account for the functional limitations, if any, resulting from the mental impairments when he makes the RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a) permits an RFC assessment to omit additional sitting, standing, or walking limitations from non-severe impairments when substantial evidence supports that omission.

Alaounis v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-09(a)

As such, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there is “more than a mere scintilla of evidence” to support the ALJ’s decision not to include further sitting, standing, or walking limitations related to the non-severe impairments of diabetes and peripheral neuropathy.

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

Lwanga v. Saul · filed 2021-02-26(a)(2)

An ALJ assessing a claimant’s RFC must “consider all of [the claimant's] medically determinable impairments of which [the ALJ is] aware, including [the claimant's] medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe’” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2); see McDonald v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 795 F.2d 1118, 1127 (1st Cir. 1986) (emphasizing that non-severe physical, mental, and psychological impairments “might in combination . . . make it impossible for a claimant to work”).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments that are not severe.

NARDONE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-26(a)(2)

The ALJ considers all impairments in this analysis, not just those deemed to be severe.

Section 404.1545(a) requires an RFC assessment to consider both severe and nonsevere impairments; inadequate consideration can make a step-two error harmful.

WOLF v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-25(a)

Thus, an ALJ will proceed to consider a plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments in the evaluation process in determining a plaintiff’s RFC. After a review of the record in this case, I cannot say that such is the case here.

Section 404.1545(e) requires the RFC assessment to consider limitations caused by all impairments, including those that are not severe.

Buzzo v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-03-11(e)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ committed reversible error by failing to consider the limitations caused by Plaintiff’s nonsevere impairment (migraine headaches) in the RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires adjudicators to consider limitations from nonsevere impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

BRACKINS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-03-18(a)(2)

If the ALJ finds a mental limitation, even if non-severe, the ALJ must consider the limitation when determining RFC and document the findings and conclusions in that regard in the written decision.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the Commissioner to consider all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments that are not severe.

Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-18(a)(2)

In assessing the RFC of a claimant with multiple impairments, the Commissioner considers all “medically determinable impairments, including . . . medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe.’” Id. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC to account for limitations from severe and non-severe impairments, but does not require a limitation when the record shows no resulting functional restriction.

Brock v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-10(a)(2)

It is true that the ALJ must account for a claimant’s limitations from both severe and non-severe impairments in the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2). Here, however, the ALJ found that there was no record evidence of functional limitations caused by Brock’s tinnitus. As such, the ALJ need not have included any limitations to account for tinnitus in the RFC.

The RFC assessment must consider functional limitations from medically determinable mental impairments even when those impairments are not severe.

HEAVEN v. SAUL · filed 2021-03-19(a)(2)

Thus, even if there were substantial evidentiary support for a conclusion that Regina's mental impairments were not severe, the ALJ still was required to provide some reasoned evaluation about whether any accommodation within the RFC was appropriate.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) bases residual functional capacity on medically determinable impairments and excludes limitations attributed to a condition that is not medically determinable.

Price v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(a)(2)

However, the RFC is based only on medically determinable impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2) (“We will consider all of your medically determinable impairments . . . .”). The Court concludes the ALJ did not err by finding chronic fatigue syndrome was not a medically determinable impairment and excluding related opined limitations in the RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of nonsevere mental impairments in assessing residual functional capacity, but the resulting capacity need not include mental limitations when the evidence supports their omission.

(SS) Sanguras v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(a)(2)

The omission of mental limitations from the RFC rather reflects the conclusion that the impairments would not interfere with the ability to perform basic work activities, which the ALJ reached at step four after considering Plaintiff’s ability to complete tasks, follow instructions, medical record, and daily activities. Consequently, the Court finds Plaintiff fails to show the ALJ did not adequately consider her mental impairments with the RFC.

Section 404.1545(e) requires an ALJ to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including those found not severe, when determining residual functional capacity.

Cox v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-16(e)

Regulations require that an ALJ “consider the limiting effects of all [the claimant’s] impairment(s), even those that are not severe,” in determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e); see also SSR 96–8p (“In assessing RFC, the adjudicator must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual's impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’ ”).

Section 404.1545(e) requires the ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Jockisch v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(e)

In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including those which are not severe.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) allows an ALJ to consider nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Edelen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-25(a)(2)

This is because the determination that an impairment is non-severe does not prevent an ALJ from considering it in his or her assessment of a claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments that are not severe.

Diaz v. Saul · filed 2021-03-26(a)(2)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the Commissioner considers all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

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

Odell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-03-29(a)(2)

The assessment is to be based upon all relevant medical and other evidence in the record and is to include consideration of the limitations caused by all the claimant’s impairments, including impairments which are not “severe” as defined in the regulations.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all known medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Knowlton v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(a)(2)

But at step four, when assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider “all [] medically determinable impairments of which [she is] aware.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2). ... In sum, the court finds that the ALJ erred by failing to explain how or if she considered Knowlton’s lumbar impairment when formulating the RFC.

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

Pleasant v. Saul · filed 2021-03-22(a)(2)

Here, the ALJ erred by failing to consider Plaintiff’s mental impairments when formulating his RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of functional limitations when assessing residual functional capacity, but omitting a non-severe impairment from the RFC discussion is harmless when the record shows no functional limitations from it.

Agard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23

Furthermore, to the extent that the ALJ failed to mention Plaintiff’s non-severe hip arthritis in his RFC discussion at step four of the five step analysis, the Court finds that procedural error to be harmless because there was no evidence in the record regarding functional limitations caused by a hip impairment.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to consider medically determinable impairments even when they are not severe.

Burgos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-25(a)(2)

An ALJ’s failure to consider a non-severe impairment when making an RFC determination is legal error.

An ALJ must consider both severe and non-severe impairments when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Southwick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-28(a)(2)

Generally, the ALJ is free to determine a claimant’s RFC based on his review of the entire record and has to consider both severe and non-severe impairments when assessing a claimant’s RFC.

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

Jones v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(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 requires an RFC assessment to consider limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments.

Dillon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-22(a)(2)

RFC 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. ... Here, the ALJ considered both plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments in evaluating her RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to account for limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including impairments found non-severe.

Larson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23

RFC 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. ... Based on this record, the Court concludes that the ALJ considered plaintiff’s obesity in combination with his other impairments.

An RFC assessment must consider all impairments, including those that are not severe.

WOOD v. SAUL · filed 2021-03-23(a)

In so doing, an ALJ makes an RFC determination taking into consideration all impairments, including any impairment that is not severe. Thus, an ALJ will proceed to consider a plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments in the evaluation process in determining a plaintiff’s RFC.

An RFC assessment considers all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Roche v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(a)(2)

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

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

Kelley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(a)(2)

In rendering the RFC, therefore, the ALJ must consider the medical opinions in conjunction with all the other evidence of record and will consider all the medically determinable impairments, including impairments that are not severe, and the total limiting effects of each. ... As discussed more fully above, the decision does not indicate that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's impairments and limitations in setting forth the RFC assessment.

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

Densberger v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(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)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Cabe v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-31(a)(2)

At step four, in assessing the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, whether severe or not severe.

An ALJ must consider nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2021-04-01(a)(2)

The ALJ must consider even those impairments that are not “severe.”

A severe impairment found at step two does not necessarily require a corresponding limitation in the residual functional capacity assessment.

Herren v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(a)(2)

The “prevailing rule,” however, is that an ALJ does not err solely because he finds an impairment “severe” at step two but does not attribute any limitation to that impairment in assessing the claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all impairments and their consistency with the medical evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

Hedges v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-30(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), (e); 416.945(a)(2), (e).

Section 404.1545(e) requires consideration of the limiting effects of all impairments, including those not classified as severe, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Gladney v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-31(e)

Moreover, the evaluator considers not only the impairments classified as “severe” but the “limiting effects” of all conditions when making a judgment about an individual’s RFC. Id. § 404.1545(e). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC findings because he adequately considered Gladney’s obesity.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider the limiting effects of all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments and pain.

Schiller v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-15(e)

In determining the RFC, the ALJ must consider the “total limiting effects” of all the medically determinable impairments, both “severe” and “non-severe,” including the effects of pain. ... Because the Court has found that the ALJ erred in considering Plaintiff’s subjective testimony and the medical evidence, the RFC also needs to be reconsidered.

An ALJ must consider limitations from all of a claimant’s impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, including impairments found to be non-severe.

BELL v. BERRYHILL · filed 2021-03-30(a)(2)

Of course, even if an impairment is non-severe, it may still affect a claimant’s RFC. 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.’” S.S.R. 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (S.S.A.), at *5 (July 2, 1996). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(e) requires an ALJ to consider limitations from medically determinable impairments even if those impairments are not severe.

Lozano v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-19(e)

The Commissioner suggests that the ALJ did not address the mental limitations discussed in the opinions of Drs. Simmons and Patel because the ALJ had found Plaintiff’s mental impairments to be non-severe (dkt. # 13 at 8), but the ALJ is required to consider limitations caused by impairments that are medically determinable even if they are not severe. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(e), 416.945(e).

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

Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-19(a)(2)

The ALJ must consider “all medically determinable impairments, physical and mental, even those that are not considered severe.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), (b), (c)). ... First, the ALJ erred in not accounting for Ms. Sanders’ mental limitations in the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the RFC assessment to account for non-severe impairments.

Stark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-19(a)(2)

Even non-severe conditions must be included in the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to consider severe and non-severe impairments, including mild mental limitations.

Boone v. Saul · filed 2021-04-28(a)(2)

But RFC assessments must discuss severe and non-severe limitations, as well as the Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s symptoms, and at best, the Court here is left to guess how the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s non-severe mental limitations and alleged symptoms did not translate into a work-related limitation.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider severe and non-severe impairments together when assessing residual functional capacity.

Landers v. Saul · filed 2021-04-30(a)(2)

It is the ALJ’s duty to determine whether the combination of severe and non-severe impairments require additional limitations to the RFC, and the accompanying hypothetical administered to the VE.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require a limitation for a mild impairment the ALJ explains does not merit one.

Rumsey v. Saul · filed 2021-05-12(a)(2)

By addressing Rumsey’s mental impairments at Step 2, the ALJ made it clear that she did not include mental limitations in the RFC because she determined the mild limitations did not merit a limitation in the RFC.

Section 404.1545(e) requires an ALJ to consider the limiting effects of all of a claimant’s impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when determining residual functional capacity.

Conner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-11(e)

Thus, the ALJ properly considered the “limiting effects of all [claimant’s] impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e); Pompa, 73 F. App’x at 803.

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

KARLIN v. SAUL · filed 2021-05-21(a)(2)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including impairments that are not severe. ... Moreover, to the extent the ALJ erred in not specifically identifying Karlin’s cervical ailment as a severe impairment at step two, any error was harmless because the ALJ thoroughly discussed the evidence of record related to Karlin’s cervical spine issues in formulating Karlin’s RFC.

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

Rolon v. Saul · filed 2021-05-24(a)(2)

For the reasons set forth below, we agree and find that the ALJ erred in finding Rolon’s right foot avascular necrosis nonsevere at step 2 and, in turn, erred in failing to consider the limiting effects of this impairment and Rolon’s need for the use of an assistive device in his RFC determination. ... 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)(2) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to analyze the potential limitations of all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Gibson-Green v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-20(a)(2)

Thus, an ALJ must conduct an in-depth analysis of the potential limitations of medically determinable impairments; failure to do so is error warranting remand.

Section 404.1545 requires consideration of non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require a separate discussion of each one when the decision permits meaningful review.

Britt v. Saul · filed 2021-05-28(a)(2)

While the administrative law judge did not specifically address Britt’s chronic pain, reflux, and hypothyroidism in the residual-functional-capacity analysis, neither our caselaw nor the regulations explicitly require this. The judge is only required to consider these non-severe impairments.

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

Herzog v. Saul · filed 2021-06-02(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. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to account for limitations from both severe and non-severe impairments.

Soler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-03(a)(2)

An RFC determination must account for limitations imposed by both severe and non-severe impairments.