20 C.F.R. § 404.1545

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

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

Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the ALJ’s finding of non-severity for plaintiff’s physical impairments was proper, there is no evidence that the ALJ ever considered the combined impact of plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments in making his RFC finding.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider an impairment’s functional limitations when assessing residual functional capacity, regardless of whether the impairment is severe.

KICHLINE v. SAUL · filed 2021-06-08(a)(2)

Moreover, regardless of an alleged impairment’s severity, an ALJ must analyze any functional limitations it causes when determining a claimant’s RFC.

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

Fiduccia v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-26(e)

However, in determining Plaintiff’ residual functional capacity, the ALJ was required to consider all of Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the RFC assessment to consider both severe and non-severe impairments; a severity error is harmless when the assessment accounts for the impairment.

Redmond v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-09(a)(2)

The Court notes that even if the ALJ had erroneously evaluated the severity of Plaintiffs impairment at step two, the error would have been harmless. The ALJ’s decision indicates that both severe and non-severe impairments factored into the RFC determination, explicitly explaining that the restriction to light work with postural modifications accommodated Plaintiffs bilateral knee osteoarthritis.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, regardless of severity.

(SS)Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-12(a)(2)

Irrespective of severity, all medically determinable impairments are indeed considered when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity prior to step four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... Thus, the ALJ did consider Plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments in reaching the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require them to appear in the final RFC if they do not affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Gracia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-20(a)(2)

Additionally, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2) only requires the ALJ to “consider” non-severe impairments when calculating the RFC.

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

Skiles v. Saul · filed 2021-07-23(a)(2)

In addition to this indicia of the ALJ’s complete review of the record, the ALJ also specifically indicated that he considered Plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments when he evaluated Plaintiff’s RFC (Tr. 14). Therefore, to the extent the ALJ erred by not finding Plaintiff’s anxiety and depression to be severe impairments, such error was harmless in light of the ALJ’s consideration of the impairments in his RFC analysis.

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

McKinney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-27(a)(2)

The ALJ has a duty to consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe, in assessing her residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

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

Pearson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-03(a)(2)

Therefore, even though the ALJ found that the plaintiff’s stenosis, knee pain and mental impairments were “nonsevere,” she should have considered them in her RFC analysis.

Residual functional capacity must account for all medically determinable impairments, including severe and non-severe impairments.

Allen v. SSA · filed 2021-07-28(a)(1)

So long as there is at least one medically determinable, severe impairment, the claim survives and the adjudicators must consider all medically determinable impairments, severe and non-severe, thereafter. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (severe and non-severe impairments considered when assessing residual functional capacity).

Residual functional capacity must account for all medically determinable impairments, whether severe or non-severe.

Presley v. SSA · filed 2021-07-30(a)(1)

If there is at least one medically determinable, severe impairment, the claim survives and the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, severe and non-severe, in the remaining steps of the analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Maynard, Christopher v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-08-03(a)(2)

In assessing an individual’s residual functional capacity, an ALJ is obligated to consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including those that are not “severe.”

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

Porter v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-05(a)(2)

The ALJ thus erred because she had a duty to assess Lawonda’s residual functional capacity with respect to all of Lawonda’s impairments, even the non-severe ones.

An ALJ must consider all proven impairments when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

(SS) Lee-Klein v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-06(a)

Additionally, the ALJ has presented no discussion regarding how these impairments might affect a determination of Plaintiff’s residual functioning capacity at Step 4. Accordingly, there are no facts present indicating a proper outcome of the residual functioning capacity or the ultimate disability evaluation.

Section 404.1545(a) permits an ALJ to omit minimal mental limitations from the RFC when the evidence does not show that they affect work-related functioning.

Robles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-11(a)

The ALJ was not obliged to include minimal mental deficiencies in the RFC determination. And the very mild nature of Plaintiff’s limitations and the substantial evidence on the record sustain the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff did not prove that her non-severe impairment impacted her work-related functioning.

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

Robinson v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-08-17(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.

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

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-20(a)(2)

So the ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not “severe.”

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

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-19(a)(2)

Though the ALJ was not required to include any mental limitations in the RFC, he is required to consider Plaintiff’s mild mental impairments in assessing her RFC. This was not done.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to address a claimant’s impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity, even if the ALJ does not include each impairment in the assessment.

Godfrey v. Saul · filed 2021-08-26(a)(3), (e)

The ALJ did not necessarily have to include this impairment in his RFC, but he at the very least had to address it.

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

CHANDLER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2021-08-26

Relevant evidence includes medically determinable impairments that are not “severe”. Id. ... To the extent that Plaintiff contends that the finding of more severe impairments would have resulted in a more restrictive residual functional capacity assessment, the ALJ considered the alleged effects of Plaintiff’s alleged impairments in determining her residual functional capacity.

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

Tate v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-07(a)(2)

So, 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). ... The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s impairments whether severe or non-severe in combination when assessing Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the RFC assessment to account for a claimant’s pain even when the associated impairment is found nonsevere.

Daniel v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-13(a)(2)

Thus, although the ALJ did not consider her fibromyalgia to be a severe impairment, the ALJ nevertheless expressly considered her pain in arriving at Daniel’s RFC.

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

Sorensen v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-14(a)(2)

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

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

Simpson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-02(a)(2)

Regardless of severity, the ALJ is required to consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including medically ... determinable impairments that are not severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe mental impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

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

Whether severe or not, the ALJ was required to explicitly consider Plaintiff’s mental-impairment limitations when assessing the RFC but failed to do so.

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

Wilder v. Saul · filed 2021-09-09(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 an ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Lindle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-10(a)(2)

Rather, even if substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that the impairment was non-severe, the ALJ nonetheless needed to consider the impairment when determining Plaintiff’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court finds that the ALJ failed to do so.

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

Zarnoch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-16(a)(2)

As noted above, the ALJ must consider all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, even those not designated as severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). Because the Court cannot decipher which impairments the ALJ rejected in his broad statement, the Court cannot determine whether the ALJ considered all non-severe GI impairments.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity. An omission at Step Two is harmless when the ALJ considers those impairments in the subsequent analysis.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2021-09-21(a)(2)

Even if the ALJ technically erred in not explicitly including chronic pain after traumatic injury or mild-to-moderate facet arthropathy in Step Two, given the ALJ’s inclusion and discussion of these diagnoses in her subsequent analysis and their close relationship to Plaintiff’s severe impairment of a history of gunshot wounds, the ALJ’s failure to include them at Step Two was, at most, a harmless error.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere ones, when assessing residual functional capacity; considering a mild mental impairment does not necessarily require a mental limitation in that assessment.

Avers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(a)(2)

It is true that where a claimant has more than one impairment, an ALJ should “consider all of your medically determinable impairments of which we are aware, including your medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe’ ….” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... Given the above quoted portions of the decision discussing the medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings, the court cannot conclude that the ALJ improperly ignored the effects of Plaintiff’s mental impairments when arriving at an RFC determination rather than determining that no mental-based limitations were warranted.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider medically determinable mental impairments, even if they are nonsevere, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Mitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-22(a)(2)

Whether severe or not, the ALJ was required to explicitly consider Mitchell’s mental impairments when assessing the RFC but failed to do so.

An RFC assessment must consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments and their limiting effects.

Martinez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-16(a)(2), (e)

An ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe, when assessing a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). In addition, an ALJ must “consider the limiting effects of all [a claimant’s] impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining [a claimant’s RFC].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e). ... The Court remands this case to allow the ALJ to consider the medical evidence and symptom testimony pertaining to Ms. Martinez’s endometriosis when formulating her RFC.

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

Ward v. Saul · filed 2021-09-20(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.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider non-severe impairments and their related symptoms along with severe impairments.

Toglena v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-22(a)

The ALJ is required to evaluate the non-severe impairment along with the severe impairments, and in particular, must consider the subjective symptom evidence related to the non-severe impairment.

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

Brant v. Saul · filed 2021-09-27(a)(2)

Second, even if the Court did agree with the Commissioner that plaintiff’s back impairment was medically determinable but not severe, finding harmless error would require the Court to determine the impairment in no way affected plaintiff’s RFC because any impact on plaintiff’s RFC could affect the work identified by the ALJ in support of the denial of benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2) (“We will consider all of your medically determinable impairments of which we are aware, including your medically determinable impairments that are not severe . . . when we assess your [RFC].”).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s impairments when determining residual functional capacity, including impairments that are not severe.

TESTA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-27(a)(2)

Plaintiff correctly notes that SSR 96-8p requires an ALJ consider all of a claimant’s impairments when developing the RFC, including those that are not severe. SSR 96-8p; (Pl. Br. 18–19); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider medically determinable mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, even if they are not severe.

Cascio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-23(a)(2)

Whether severe or not, the ALJ was required to explicitly consider Cascio’s mental impairments when assessing the RFC but failed to do so.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider limitations from all impairments, including those that are not severe, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Allen v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-24(e)

The ALJ must consider the limitations and restrictions imposed by all of the claimant’s impairments, even those that are not severe.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the residual functional capacity assessment to consider limitations from medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-27(a)(2)

This analysis demonstrates that the ALJ adequately considered the limitations attributable to Johnson’s back pain and mild degenerative disc disease, whether or not he found them to be a severe impairment.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider non-severe mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity and to explain why they warrant no limitations.

Harvey v. Saul · filed 2021-09-28(a)(2)

On remand, the ALJ should consider all of Plaintiffs impairments in the RFC determination regardless of their severity. The ALJ may find that Plaintiff's mental impairments are inconsequential and, thus, reject the need to incorporate mental limitations into the RFC — but he must explain his reasoning for doing so.

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

Hurley v. Saul · filed 2021-09-29(a)(2)

While the regulations plainly require ALJs to consider limitations from non-severe impairments during the RFC analysis, I disagree the ALJ did so in this case.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the RFC assessment to consider all medically determinable impairments in combination, including impairments found not severe at step two.

SMITH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-29(a)(2)

This is because 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 the ALJ has not deemed to be severe at step two.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe ones, when assessing residual functional capacity; it does not require limitations for a condition that is not medically determinable.

Karr v. Saul · filed 2021-09-27(a)(2)

As a preliminary matter, although Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to consider Plaintiff’s shortness of breath in his RFC determination, Plaintiff does not appear to raise any dispute as to the ALJ’s conclusion that his shortness of breath was not a medically determinable impairment.4 As such, the ALJ was not required to review or include limitations related to that impairment.

Section 404.1545 requires the residual functional capacity assessment to consider the limiting effects of all medically determinable impairments, including those found non-severe at step two.

Nunes v. Saul · filed 2021-09-30(a)(2)

Thus, any categorization of Petitioner’s visual limitations/conditions as non-severe at step two is largely inconsequential because the ALJ necessarily considered the limiting effects of these impairments in conjunction with Petitioner’s other related impairments in determining his RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to consider limitations from all medically determinable impairments, whether severe or non-severe.

KENNEY v. SAUL · filed 2021-09-30(a)(2)

The concededly more important question is whether the ALJ’s RFC determination includes all limitations arising from medically determinable impairments, whether those impairments are severe or non-severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

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

Zalk-Smith v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2021-09-30(e)

When determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ is required to “consider the limiting effects of all [the claimant’s] impairment(s), even those that are not severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e). ... The Court agrees with Ms. Zalk-Smith that the ALJ committed harmful error by failing to adequately consider Ms. Zalk-Smith’s alleged functional limitations related to her CTS impairment when the ALJ formulated the RFC.

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

GRICE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-10-05(a)(2)

When assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments which are supported by the record, including those considered non-severe.

When assessing residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider the combined impact of all impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Leigh v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-12(a)(2)

At step 2, as long as a claimant has at least one “severe” impairment, the ALJ proceeds with the remainder of the sequential evaluation process and, when assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the combined impact of all impairments, including those that are non-severe.

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

Cook v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-19(a)(2)

The ALJ must consider all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe, when assessing the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... Therefore, the ALJ properly considered Mr. Cook’s non-severe impairments in her RFC decision.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider the combined functional effects of severe and nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Jones v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-19(a)(2)

But when “assessing [a] claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, whether severe or not severe.” Wells, 727 F.3d at 1065 (emphasis omitted). ... Thus, the Court finds the ALJ did not “expressly consider whether or how Plaintiff’s [prostate cancer] affect[ed] [Plaintiff’s] functioning and provided no explanation for [his] rejection” of any related functional limitation and reversal is warranted.

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

MEERSAND v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-10-28(a)(2)

The Social Security regulations require an RFC assessment to take into consideration all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those not considered severe.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider the combined impact of all medically determinable impairments, including mild impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Laggner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-02(a)(2)

However, this stock language is insufficient. The ALJ must actually consider the combined impact of the impairments, even mild ones, when determining the RFC.

An RFC need not include mental limitations from nonsevere impairments that cause only minimal functional limitations when the record shows no greater limitations.

Holler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-15(a)

Therefore, the ALJ did not err in formulating an RFC determination absent mental limitations where the ALJ properly determined at step two Plaintiff’s mental impairments were non-severe and caused only minimal limitations in various areas of mental functioning.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider severe and nonsevere medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

(SS) Frary v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-18(a)(2)

The ALJ must consider both severe and nonsevere medically determinable impairments when determining the RFC.

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

ELLIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-11-12(a)(2)

This is because 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 the ALJ has not deemed to be severe at step two.

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

ALVARADO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-11-12(a)(2)

It is correct that where an ALJ finds that the claimant has at least one severe medically determinable impairment at step two and continues onto the subsequent steps, the omission of another medically determinable impairment at step two is harmless error if the ALJ considers all the medically determinable impairments - severe and not severe - in combination in the RFC determination.

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

Garrett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-16(e)

The Social Security regulations further describe what an ALJ must take into account: “we will consider the limiting effects of all your impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining your residual functional capacity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e). ... The ALJ’s discussion therefore demonstrates that he explicitly considered Plaintiff’s uveitis when assessing her RFC.

An ALJ must consider both severe and non-severe impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Hamid v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-22(a)(2)

An ALJ must consider all impairments, severe and non-severe, when determining a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2); see also Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012).

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

LEICHTER v. SAUL · filed 2021-12-13(a)(2)

This omission strongly suggests that the ALJ violated his responsibility to include in the RFC assessment limitations attributable to severe as well as 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.

Remelin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-03(e)

The ALJ must consider the limiting effects of all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe, in assessing the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e); SSR 96-8p.

An RFC assessment considers the entire record, including limitations from both severe and nonsevere impairments.

BETANCOURT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-05(a)(2)

I note, however, that ALJ Tirrell quite properly undertook the RFC analysis with respect to the entire record, including limitations found to be nonsevere and severe.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the RFC assessment to account for limitations from medically determinable impairments even when they are not severe.

MANN v. SAUL · filed 2022-01-12(a)(2)

Because the case will be remanded to allow another ALJ to review the claim, the severity of Plaintiff’s tendinitis will be revisited, and the limitations posed by Plaintiff’s tendinitis must be included in the ALJ’s RFC assessment and hypotheticals posed to the VE regardless of whether tendinitis is considered severe.

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

Acevedo v. Saul · filed 2021-12-27(a)(2)

Furthermore, once the ALJ determined that Acevedo had at least one severe impairment, the ALJ was obligated to “consider all of [her] medically determinable impairments of which [he was] aware, including [her] medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe,’” when assessing her RFC. ... The ALJ engaged in such consideration of each of Acevedo’s non-severe impairments, see R. 20-23, and therefore no reversible error occurred at step two.

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

RUTH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-12-28(a)(2)

Plaintiff is correct that the ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s impairments, whether severe or non-severe, when formulating the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2) (“We will consider all of your medically determinable impairments of which we are aware, including your medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe,’ as explained in §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1421, and 404.1523, when we assess your residual functional capacity.”). However, as discussed above, the ALJ did consider Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments.

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

BRUMFIELD v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-01-06(a)(2)

In so doing, an ALJ makes an RFC determination taking into consideration all impairments, including any impairment that is not severe.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider how a claimant’s impairments affect residual functional capacity; failing to address relevant impairment evidence can require remand.

Simone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-11

The ALJ’s failure to discuss entirely plaintiff's radiculopathy and whether, and to what extent, it factored into her RFC determination constitutes reversible error.

A severe impairment does not automatically require a corresponding work limitation in the residual functional capacity assessment.

Nudelman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-11(a)

As a threshold matter, despite Nudelman’s arguments to the contrary, it is well established that “[a] severe impairment need not necessarily correspond to limitations on a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities . . . .” Thomas v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 480 F. App’x 462, 463 (9th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up).

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

Wiles v. Saul · filed 2022-01-14(a)(2)

In determining an RFC, the ALJ is required to consider all “medically determinable impairments of which” they are aware, including “medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe.’” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... Here, the ALJ properly considered and explained the relevant evidence of mental and physical limitations when formulating plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require an RFC limitation when an impairment causes no significant work limitation.

Cruz v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-28(a)(2)

However, an ALJ is not required to include limitations in the RFC if the record supports a conclusion that the non-severe impairment does not cause a significant limitation in the claimant’s ability to work.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider mild, non-severe mental limitations when assessing residual functional capacity.

Springer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-18(a)(2), (e)

This Court agrees with Plaintiff. ... If Plaintiff’s RFC had included accommodation for his mild limitation in interacting with others, and the VE properly informed of all of Plaintiff’s limitations, these jobs likely would not have been listed as jobs Plaintiff could perform. ... Thus, remand is required so that the ALJ may properly assess Plaintiff’s mental RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity; an alleged condition found not medically determinable need not be considered.

Douthard v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-01-27(a)(2)

But here the ALJ found at Step 2 that Douthard’s alleged depression and anxiety weren’t medically determinable impairments, (R. 18), a finding that Douthard doesn’t challenge on appeal. So the ALJ didn’t have to consider Douthard’s alleged mental impairments when fashioning her hypothetical question. See 20 CFR § 404.1545(a)(2) (“We will consider all of your medically determinable impairments . . . when we assess your residual functional capacity.” (emphasis added)).

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

Polsgrove v. Saul · filed 2022-02-14(a)(2)

The ALJ “must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’ While a ‘not severe’ impairment(s) standing alone may not significantly limit an individual’s ability to do basic work activities, it may--when considered with limitations or restrictions due to other impairment--be critical to the outcome of the claim.” SSR 96-8p; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2) (“We will consider all of your medically determinable impairments of which we are aware, including your medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe,’ . . . when we assess your residual functional capacity.”).

An ALJ must consider limitations from severe and non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but need not include limitations associated with every mild impairment.

Long v. Saul · filed 2022-01-31(a)(2)

Although an ALJ must consider limitations imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, both severe and non-severe, when making their RFC assessment, there is no requirement that an ALJ must find or include limitations associated with mild impairments.

Section 404.1545(a) requires the ALJ to consider limitations from all impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but a mild impairment does not automatically require an RFC restriction.

Weidner v. Saul · filed 2022-02-01(a)

An individual’s RFC is an assessment of the most that person can still do in a work setting, despite the limitations caused by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). The ALJ must consider limitations imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not “severe.” ... the ALJ’s consideration of the individual’s non-severe impairments does not amount to a requirement that the ALJ must include limitations in the RFC associated with mild impairments.

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

Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-04(a)(2)

The ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe. ... On this issue then, the ALJ committed no error.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider non-severe impairments when determining residual functional capacity, even if the evidence shows no resulting work-related limitations.

Redd v. Saul · filed 2022-02-04(a)(2)

As the Court discussed supra, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s headaches and dysphagia “non-severe” impairments. Nonetheless, the ALJ must still account for these impairments in the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). However, no medical evidence suggests these impairments cause any work-related limitations.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but omitting one is harmless when there is no evidence that it causes functional limitations.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-11(a)(2)

However, this error is harmless given that there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Plaintiff’s depression would contribute to functional limitations.

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

Cubano v. Saul · filed 2022-02-18(a)(2)

In making this assessment, the ALJ considers all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including any non-severe impairment identified by the ALJ at step two of his or her analysis. ... Despite Cubano’s failure to allege disability due to her migraine headaches or anxiety, the ALJ nevertheless considered her mental status in crafting the RFC. ... Thus, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision regarding Cubano’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Slusher v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-28(a)(2)

Although the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff’s mental impairments non-severe, the ALJ was still required to consider Plaintiff’s mental impairments when determining Plaintiff’s RFC between steps three and four.

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

Honeycutt v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-09(a)(2)

Impairments that are “not severe,” unlike impairments that are “not medically determinable,” must still be considered in evaluating a claimant’s RFC.

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

Doering v. Saul · filed 2022-03-07(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 an RFC assessment to account for limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Manfredine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-08(a)(2)

A claimant’s RFC includes limitations for all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... Here, the ALJ’s discussion of the objective findings, clinical findings, and opinion evidence provides a glimpse into her reasoning that builds the necessary “logical bridge” from the evidence in the record to her determination of Mr. M’s RFC as it pertains to his neck mobility prior to the date last insured.

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

Feliciano-Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-09(a)(2)

Accordingly, even if the ALJ erroneously found that some of the claimant’s impairments are non-severe at step two, the error is harmless if the ALJ continues the sequential analysis and considers both the claimant’s severe and non-severe impairments when formulating the RFC.

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

Peck v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-11(a)(2)

Plaintiff is correct in asserting that when assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, whether severe or not severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *4 (July 2, 1996).

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

Powell v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-14(a)(2)

Impairments that are “not severe,” unlike impairments that are “not medically determinable” or fail to meet the duration requirement, must still be considered in evaluating a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.FR. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2). The ALJ’s failure to distinguish among the three categories frustrates the court’s review of the ALJ’s step two and RFC determinations.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity; the ALJ may incorporate earlier findings about a mild limitation by reference.

Cale v. Social Security · filed 2022-03-15(a)(2)

The fact that an ALJ fails to explicitly address a mild limitation in the section of her order formulating a residual functional capacity does not run afoul of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2), so long as the ALJ incorporates the findings by reference in assessing the residual functional capacity.

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

McMahon v. Saul · filed 2022-03-15(a)(2)

Nevertheless, when assessing the RFC, the ALJ must consider all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including any non-severe impairment identified by the ALJ at step two of his or her analysis.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of nonsevere mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require limitations that the evidence does not support.

(SS) Barry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-16(a)(2)

In this case, unlike Hutton, the ALJ expressly considered Plaintiff's mental impairment in formulating his residual functional capacity. ... The omission of mental limitations from the RFC reflects the conclusion that the impairments would not interfere with the ability to perform basic work activities.

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

Quider v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-17(a)(2)

Such omission constitutes error because the ALJ found plaintiff’s depression to be a nonsevere medically determinable impairment and was therefore required to consider the impairment in the RFC analysis.

Section 404.1545 requires an RFC assessment to consider limitations from non-severe impairments.

Estes v. Saul · filed 2022-03-15

Thus, the Court holds that the ALJ properly considered Estes’s non-severe impairment from fibromyalgia when evaluating her RFC.

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

Zingale v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-18(a)(2)

It is true that where a claimant has more than one impairment, an ALJ should “consider all of your medically determinable impairments of which we are aware, including your medically de terminable impairments that are not ‘severe’ ….” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(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.

Simon v. Saul · filed 2022-03-18(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 the ALJ to consider non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but does not require a separate limitation for each one.

DuBois v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21(a)(2)

This does not mean, however, that the ALJ must include a specific limitation in the RFC corresponding to each of the claimant's non-severe impairments.

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

DONZELLA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-23(a)(2)

At step four, in determining the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ is required to assess all of the Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments, both severe and not severe, in combination. ... The Court agrees with Maria D. and finds that the ALJ erred by failing to account for Maria D.’s severe and non-severe impairments in combination.

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

TRENT v. Saul · filed 2022-03-23

An ALJ must consider all a claimant’s medically determinable impairments in assessing a claimant’s RFC, including impairments that are not severe.

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

Numan v. Saul · filed 2022-03-24(a)(2)

As a foundational matter, the ALJ must consider the limiting effect of all impairments, including those that are non-severe, in assessing a claimant's RFC.

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

Mastronardi v. Saul · filed 2022-03-28

Although the absence of a severe impairment at Step Two ends the inquiry, once there is a finding of any severe impairment, the ALJ is instructed, in determining the claimant’s RFC, to “consider the limiting effects of all [the claimant’s] impairment(s), even those that are not severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; see also Viveiros v. Astrue, No. 10-cv-11902, 2012 WL 4104794, at *9 n.4 (D. Mass. Sept. 19, 2012). ... The ALJ plainly considered impairments beyond his lumbar spine condition, including his radicular symptoms, when determining if Claimant was eligible for benefits.

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

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

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

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

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

One’s RFC is the “most you can still do despite your limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).

Residual functional capacity measures a claimant’s ability to perform sustained physical and mental work despite limitations from impairments.

ZENKUS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-28

RFC is the claimant’s ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from his or her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. ... In assessing Plaintiff’s RFC, ALJ Russak discussed in detail Plaintiff’s medical records and found that he can perform medium work with specific limitations. (R. 50–51.) ... The ALJ’s assessment, therefore, is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1545 requires an assessment of a claimant’s physical, mental, sensory, and other work abilities when determining residual functional capacity.

Tate v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-29(a)(4)

As previously discussed, at step four of the sequential analysis the ALJ formulates a claimant’s RFC by assessing his or her “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(4). ... Therefore, the court finds the AL] properly assessed Tate’s residual functional capacity, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.

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

Lee v. Saul · filed 2022-03-29(a)(1)

The ALJ’s RFC assessment that Plaintiff can “stand and/or walk 6 hours and sit 6 hours in an 8 hour workday with normal breaks” reflects Dr. Dodge’s medical opinion that Plaintiff can “work anywhere from 4 to 8 hours” since the RFC is supposed to represent the most a claimant can do despite the claimant’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

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

Bryson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(a)(1)

An individual’s RFC is the most a claimant can still do despite their physical and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1); 416.945(a)(1).

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to assess what a claimant can do in a work setting despite limitations from medically determinable impairments.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29

At step four, the ALJ determines the claimant’s RFC, which 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 her medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945. ... This is precisely what the ALJ did in evaluating the medical record in this case. Based on this record, the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence, as are the related hypothetical questions posed to the VE.

Section 404.1545(a) describes residual functional capacity as a claimant’s work-related abilities despite their limitations.

DeCaro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(a)

A claimant’s RFC is an indication of an individual’s work-related abilities despite their limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a).

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

Opfer v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(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 is “the most [a claimant] can do despite [his or her] limitations,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). ... Having reviewed the entire record, the Court finds that the ALJ made a proper RFC determination based on a fully developed record.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to account for both severe and non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Tolan v. Saul · filed 2022-03-28

Under the Commissioner’s regulations, all impairments, both severe and non- severe, must be accounted for in an ALJ’s RFC assessment.

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

SIDDIQUI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-29(a)(2)

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

An ALJ must consider restrictions resulting from non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

Mancuso v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(a)(2)

However, even where an ALJ properly determines that plaintiff’s mental limitations are non-severe at step two, the ALJ may not simply rely upon such a finding as a substitute for a proper RFC analysis, but must consider the effect of any restrictions resulting from a non-severe impairment when determining plaintiff’s RFC at step four.

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

Lanier v. Saul · filed 2022-03-30(a)(2)

In making this assessment, the ALJ considers all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including any non-severe impairments identified by the ALJ at step two of his or her analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

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

Chives v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(a)(2)

All medically determinable impairments will be considered in the RFC assessment, including those that are not “severe.” ... In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the ALJ disregarded evidence of HCD and mental impairments in formulating the RFC such that he cannot perform the requirements of light work with postural and manipulative limitations.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider limitations from all impairments, including mild mental limitations, and failure to address them requires remand.

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

In determining a claimant's RFC, "the adjudicator must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual's impairments, even those that are not 'severe.'" SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5, at *14; Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d at 563. ... In sum, the ALJ's failure to adequately discuss Plaintiffs mild functional limitations in assessing Plaintiffs RFC requires remand.

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

VOLLMER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-07(a)(2)

This is because 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 the ALJ has not deemed to be severe at step two.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider whether a non-severe mental impairment and its symptoms limit specific work-related functions.

Archie v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-31

When a mental impairment is properly found to be non-severe, 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(a)(2) requires the residual functional capacity assessment to consider limitations imposed by medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments.

Reimer v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-31(a)(2)

Therefore, the Court will additionally remand this matter for consideration of what limitations or restrictions, if any, are imposed by Plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments in the assessment of her residual functional capacity at step four. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5.

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

STRUCICH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-31(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.

Section 404.1545 requires an ALJ to consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, when assessing residual functional capacity and to explain whether they warrant additional limitations.

MANCO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-31(a)(2)

On remand, the ALJ shall supplement his analysis in support of the RFC assessment to include a discussion as to whether additional limitations are warranted in light of Plaintiff’s challenged impairments: headaches/migraines, fibromyalgia, anxiety/mental health, and side effects of medication. It may be the case that the ALJ reaches the same result on remand and determines that the record, as a whole, does not support the addition of any such limitations or revisions to Plaintiff’s RFC assessment. However, such an analysis is necessary for this Court to determine that the ALJ’s RFC assessment meets the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (“[w]e will consider all of your medically determinable impairments of which we are aware, including you medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe’”).

Section 404.1545(e) requires consideration of nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity, but mild mental limitations do not necessarily require corresponding RFC restrictions.

McCoy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-15(e)

In discussing the applicable law, the ALJ acknowledged that he “must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe,” citing the applicable regulations and Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p (Tr. 17). At step two, the ALJ addressed the functional limitations imposed by Plaintiff’s depression (see Tr. 18-19). Furthermore, contrary to Plaintiff’s suggestion, the ALJ’s findings of mild limitations in each of the four areas of mental functioning does not necessarily mean the ALJ was required to incorporate mental limitations into Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the RFC assessment to consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including nonsevere ones.

BAKOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-19(e)

Its determination requires consideration of all the relevant evidence in the case record, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3), and the total limiting effects of all impairments, even those which are nonsevere.

Residual functional capacity assessments must consider all known medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe.

Woods v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-22(a)(2)

In assessing Woods’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ was required to “consider all of [her known] medically determinable impairments . . . , including [those] that are not ‘severe.’” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere ones, when assessing residual functional capacity. Consideration in that assessment can make an omission at step two harmless.

Cronk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-02(a)(2)

As the ALJ explicitly considered plaintiff's “shoulder abscess” in her RFC determination, the ALJ’s lack of discussion about the condition at step two is harmless error.

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

FLECK v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-04-22(a)(2)

ALJs must account for both severe and non-severe medically determinable physical and mental impairments in the RFC determination.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe, when determining residual functional capacity.

Fox v. Saul · filed 2022-04-27(a)(2)

Although the ALJ did not find other severe impairments, other than hearing impairments, the ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s impairments—severe and non-severe—in determining the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires the RFC assessment to consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere ones; an impairment found not medically determinable need not be considered.

FORD v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-20(a)(2)

However, because the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's mental health impairments were non- medically determinable, the ALJ was not required to consider such impairments in the residual functional capacity analysis.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider non-severe impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

Holden v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-02(a)(2)

When determining plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ was required to consider any non-severe impairments.

An RFC assessment must consider limitations from all of a claimant’s impairments, including those the ALJ did not find severe.

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

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.’” ... The ALJ’s Decision makes clear that he considered the medical evidence containing orthopedic complaints at later steps of the sequential inquiry.

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

REYNOLDS v. KIJAZAKI · filed 2022-05-16(a)(2)

As indicated supra, the Court must ensure that the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments toward her RFC, regardless of their severity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2). Having reviewed the ALJ’s decision in its entirety, see Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2004), the Court finds that the ALJ accounted for Plaintiff’s mental impairments in his assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC despite his finding that these impairments were non-severe at step two.

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

Frazer v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-24(a)(2)

In determining the scope of a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ’s assessment must “consider all of [a claimant’s] medically determinable impairments . . . , including [her] medically determinable impairments that are not severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). ... Having reviewed the administrative record and the ALJ’s decision, the Court is satisfied that the ALJ appropriately evaluated Plaintiff’s mental health conditions and Mast cell disease in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider severe and nonsevere medically determinable impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

(SS) Woods v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-13(a)(2), (e)

The ALJ must consider both severe and nonsevere medically determinable impairments when determining the RFC.

Section 404.1545(a)(1) requires the ALJ to assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence; an ALJ may exclude a claimed symptom limitation after explaining why it is inconsistent with other evidence.

Mason v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-05-17(a)(1)

A claimant’s RFC is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite her limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It must be crafted by an ALJ based on all relevant evidence in the record. Id. ... Although the ALJ’s discussion of Mason’s complaints regarding the time period surrounding her infusion could have been more focused, the ALJ addressed Mason’s complaints regarding her pre- and post-infusion symptoms and explained why she found them inconsistent with other evidence in the record. Thus, Mason’s complaint regarding the ALJ’s discussion of those symptoms is not a sufficient basis to reverse.

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires consideration of nonsevere impairments when assessing residual functional capacity; an ALJ may incorporate mild limitations by reference rather than repeat them explicitly.

Avalon v. Social Security · filed 2022-05-27(a)(2)

The fact that an ALJ fails to explicitly address a mild limitation in the section of her order formulating a residual functional capacity does not run afoul of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2), so long as the ALJ incorporates the findings by reference in assessing the residual functional capacity. ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is sufficient to establish incorporation of the Step 2 analysis into the residual functional capacity assessment.

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

Cabrera v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-13(a)(2)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2) provides that, in determining the RFC, “[w]e will consider all of your medically determinable impairments of which we are aware, including your medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe[.]’”. ... Here, the ALJ considered plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments in formulating the RFC, and explained that the “residual functional capacity assessment reflects the fact I found no mental health limitations found in the ‘paragraph B’ mental function analysis.” Tr. 21. The ALJ therefore committed no error.

An ALJ assessing residual functional capacity must consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe mental and physical impairments.

Cavins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-18(a)(2)

When determining the RFC, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, mental and physical, even those that are non-severe.

Section 404.1545 requires the ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s impairments and related symptoms, including pain, when determining exertional and non-exertional capacity.

CHAFFINS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-05-26(b)

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

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

LOURENCO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-05-26(a)(2)

When assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments which are supported by the record, including those considered non-severe.

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

Collins v. Saul · filed 2022-05-26(a)(2)

In making this assessment, the ALJ considers all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including any non-severe impairment identified by the ALJ at step two of his or her analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(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.

MCCORMACK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-03(a)(2)

To determine the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ “considers all…the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including any non-severe impairments identified by the ALJ at step two of his or her analysis.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2)).

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.

England v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-07(a)(2)

In determining an RFC, an ALJ is required to consider all “medically determinable impairments of which” she is aware, including “medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe.’” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an ALJ to consider limitations from every medically determinable impairment when assessing residual functional capacity, regardless of severity.

SMITH v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-06-07(a)(2)

In finding a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider limitations that arise from any medically determinable impairment regardless of its severity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2). ... The Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument because it has no reason to believe the ALJ did not consider the combined effect of Plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments, or the combined effect of Plaintiff’s diabetes mellitus, obesity, and borderline intellectual functioning impairments.

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

Case v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-08(a)(2)

When determining the RFC, the ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, mental and physical, even those that are non-severe.

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

Chapman v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-08(a)(2)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ is required to consider the limitations arising from both severe and non-severe impairments.

An RFC assessment must account for non-severe impairments if they are medically determinable.

AGOSTINI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-10(a)(2)

Consequently, the ALJ’s decision is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings so that the ALJ may properly consider and characterize Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments, and if such impairments are medically determinable, consider how Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments affect his RFC and his capability to perform work that exists in the national economy.

An ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s impairments when determining residual functional capacity, including impairments that are not severe.

Gunther v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-13(a)(2), (e)

However, an ALJ must consider all impairments in determining a claimant’s RFC, even those that are not severe.

Section 404.1545 requires the RFC assessment to consider medically determinable impairments even when they are not severe; a step-two finding does not substitute for that assessment.

CONLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-30

The Court thus disagrees with the Commissioner’s suggestion that the ALJ’s step two decision is an adequate substitute for her RFC analysis.

Section 404.1545(e) requires consideration of the limiting effects of all impairments, including non-severe impairments, when determining residual functional capacity.

Risner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-28(e)

Thus, as explained in Hedges, it was “legally irrelevant” that the ALJ did not find Plaintiff’s other impairments to be severe, as the ALJ was required to consider the limiting effects of all Plaintiff’s impairments, both severe and non-severe, in formulating his RFC.

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

Harp v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-29(a)(2)

Ultimately, the Court concludes that the ALJ failed to adequately address Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments in assessing the RFC. See Wells, 727 F.3d at 1065 (“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”) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2)).

Section 404.1545(e) requires the ALJ to consider the limiting effects of severe and non-severe impairments when determining residual functional capacity.

KWASNIK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-30(e)

Rather, Social Security law merely requires the ALJ to “consider the limiting effects of all your impairment(s), even those that are not severe, in determining your [RFC].” 20 CFR § 404.1545(e) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1545(a)(2) requires an RFC assessment to consider the combined effect of all medically determinable impairments, whether severe or not severe.

Garcia v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-28(a)(2)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, “the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, whether severe or not severe.” Wells v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 1061, 1065 (10th Cir. 2013) (emphasis omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2).

In assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ must consider all medically determinable impairments, including nonsevere impairments, and their limiting effects alongside the medical opinions and other evidence.

Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-06(a)(2), (e)

In rendering the RFC, the ALJ must consider the medical opinions in conjunction with all the other evidence of record and must consider all the medically determinable impairments, including impairments that are not severe, and the total limiting effects of each.

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

McIlhenny v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-08(a)(2)

In addition, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2) requires only that the ALJ “consider” non-severe impairments when determining the RFC.