20 C.F.R. § 416.920

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires comparing a claimant’s impairments with the listed impairments at Step Three; meeting or equaling a listing establishes disability for purposes of the sequential evaluation.

Rossini v. Saul · filed 2021-03-22(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three, the ALJ compares the claimant’s impairments to the impairments listed in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), (d). The claimant bears the burden of showing his impairments meet or equal an impairment in the listing. Id. If the claimant is successful, a disability is presumed and benefits are awarded. Id. If the claimant is unsuccessful, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and proceeds to Step Four. See id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv), (e). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s depressive disorder and bipolar disorder are both disabling at Step Three.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether a claimant’s medically determinable impairment meets or equals the criteria in the Commissioner’s regulations.

Slater v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-24(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s medically determinable impairment “meets” or “equals” associated criteria in the Commissioner’s regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, the regulation requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Reeves v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-05-21(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). Each Listing sets forth the “symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings” which must be established for a claimant’s impairment to meet the Listing. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999). If a claimant’s condition meets or equals a Listing, the claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to consider at step three whether the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does not, the evaluation proceeds to later steps.

Huston v. SSA · filed 2021-06-28(a)(4)(iii)

The listings are considered at step three of the five-step sequential process, where the ALJ considers “if the claimant’s impairment matches or is ‘equal’ to one of the listed impairments” and if so, she “qualifies for benefits without further inquiry.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 525 (1990); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); (d). If the claimant’s impairments are not serious enough to meet or equal every requirement of a listing, then the analysis proceeds to the fourth and fifth steps. Sullivan, 493 U.S. at 525, 530; § 416.920(e). ... The ALJ concluded that Huston did not satisfy the “B” criteria, finding only “moderate” limitations in all four areas. ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 416.920(d) requires a finding of disability at step three when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, without considering age, education, or work experience.

Colon v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-07(d)

The Social Security regulations list certain impairments, any of which is sufficient, at step three, to create an irrebuttable presumption of disability. DeChirico v. Callahan, 134 F.3d 1177, 1180 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d)). “The regulations also provide for a finding of such a disability per se if an individual has an impairment that is ‘equal to’ a listed impairment.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (“If you have an impairment(s) which ... is listed in appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment(s), we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.” (internal quotation marks omitted))); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) ends the sequential evaluation and treats a claimant as disabled when the impairment or combination meets or equals a listed impairment, without considering age, education, or work experience.

Rivers v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-02(a)(4)(iii)

If a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment, the evaluation process is concluded and the claimant is considered disabled without considering the claimant’s age, education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). At step three of the disability analysis, the ALJ must determine if plaintiff suffers from a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that his or her medical condition or conditions meet all of the specific medical criteria of particular listed impairments.

Section 416.920(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated through the Commissioner’s sequential process, including a step-two determination of whether the claimant has a medically determinable severe impairment.

Calhoun v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-09(a)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has any medically determinable severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(ii). The impairment “must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.921. An impairment is “not severe” if it does not “significantly limit” the ability to conduct “basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.922(a). Basic work activities are “abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.922(b). “An impairment or combination of impairments can be found not severe only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). The claimant bears the burden of demonstrating that an impairment is medically determinable and severe. Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2009). The ALJ did not err in finding no physical impairments to be medically determinable.

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether a severe impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Fritz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-13(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ, in step three of the decision, must determine whether the claimant’s severe impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the medical equivalent of a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.925, 416.926. Any ALJ conclusion must be capable of judicial review. Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 119 (3d Cir. 2000). For the conclusion to be capable of judicial review, the ALJ must set forth the reasons for the decision. Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119. ... This constitutes analysis capable of judicial review, thus the ALJ met its obligation under Burnett.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the adjudicator at step three to decide whether the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, with an adequately explained analysis sufficient for meaningful judicial review.

Perkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-08(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step in the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if his impairment meets or equals one of the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). ... For the period after June 8, 2018, the ALJ’s analysis does not provide the “accurate and logical bridge” necessary for this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the ALJ’s decision.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) provides that a claimant is disabled at step three when the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-04(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step in the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or equals one of the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). ... Here, the ALJ’s Step Three findings that Rivera did not meet or equal the requirements of Listing 1.02 is within that “zone of choice” and thus supported by substantial evidence. ... Therefore, the undersigned recommends the Court affirm the ALJ’s findings at Step Three.

At step three, an impairment must meet or equal a listed impairment's criteria, including the duration requirement; satisfying the criteria establishes disability without further analysis.

Gilbert v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2021-10-14(a)(4)(iii)

Step three in the sequential analysis considers whether an applicant’s medical impairment meets or equals the criteria of one of the listed impairments in Appendix 1 of the regulations,2 as well as satisfying the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.905(a) (specifying that the impairment “has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months”). If an applicant satisfies the criteria of a listed impairment, then she is found to be “per se disabled and no further analysis is necessary.” Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 220 F.3d 112, 119 (3d Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... Without such evidence, Gilbert is not per se disabled under listing § 1.02A.

At Step Three, a claimant is disabled if the claimant's impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in Appendix 1.

Carlos N. v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-10(d)

Third, if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Appendix 1, the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) treats a claimant as disabled if a severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, regardless of age, education, or work experience.

Bruno v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-03(a)(4)(iii)

Third, if the claimant has a severe impairment, the Commissioner considers the impairment’s medical severity. If the impairment meets or equals one of the presumptively disabling impairments listed in the regulations, the claimant is considered disabled, regardless of age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), (d).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether a claimant's severe impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment, and the supporting analysis may appear outside the Listings discussion if it permits judicial review.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-18(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ, in step three of the decision, must determine whether the claimant’s severe impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the medical equivalent of a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.925, 416.926. Any ALJ conclusion must be capable of judicial review. Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 119 (3d Cir. 2000). For the conclusion to be capable of judicial review, the ALJ must set forth the reasons for the decision. Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119. ... This constitutes analysis capable of judicial review, thus the ALJ met its obligation under Burnett. See Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119. Since evaluation of step three evidence “need not appear specifically in the Listings discussion,” and the ALJ did evaluate step three evidence in the RFC discussion, this matter shall not be remanded on grounds that the ALJ’s erred in his analysis of Listing 8.05. See Faust, 2019 WL 522692, at *4.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii)(d) requires an adjudicator who finds a severe impairment at step two to determine at step three whether it meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Fornieri v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-24(a)(4)(iii)(d)

In general, if the ALJ determines a plaintiff has a severe mental or physical impairment at step two, the ALJ must then determine whether the impairment meets the criteria of any impairment listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii)(d).

At step three, after finding a severe impairment at step two, the agency must determine whether the impairment meets the criteria of a listed impairment.

Baez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-28(a)(4)(iii)(d)

In general, if an ALJ determines a plaintiff has a severe mental or physical impairment at step two of the disability evaluation procedure, the ALJ must then determine whether the impairment meets the criteria of any impairment listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii)(d)3.

At step three, if a claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, the claimant is conclusively disabled.

Lewis v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-01(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three of the sequential evaluation process, when a claimant’s impairment is compared to the criteria in Listing 12.05, three of the four criteria for intellectual disability rely in whole or in part on IQ test scores (the fourth criterion applies when the claimant’s incapacity precludes IQ testing.) Because meeting the relevant listing conclusively determines that a claimant is indeed disabled, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), the claimant’s IQ score is often the deciding factor in a determination of intellectual disability.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at Step 3 to decide whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; meeting the listing results in disability without considering vocational factors.

Booker v. Saul · filed 2022-03-04(a)(4)(iii)

At Step 3, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

Under the sequential evaluation in § 416.920(a)(4), step three asks whether the claimant's impairments meet the stringent criteria for presumptive disability, rather than whether they prevent that particular claimant from engaging in full-time work.

Morgan v. Saul · filed 2022-03-30(a)(4)

These arguments conflate the standards at Step Two, Three, and Four of the sequential analysis. At Step Three, the question is not whether a claimant’s impairments are severe (this question has already been answered in the affirmative) or whether these impairments prevent that particular claimant from engaging in full-time work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). The question is whether the claimant has shown that her conditions meet the stringent criteria for presumptive disability. Zebley, 493 U.S. at 532. The reasonableness of the ALJ’s findings must be measured according to this standard.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the Commissioner at step three to determine whether a claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; if they meet the listed criteria, the claimant must be found disabled.

Weiss v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-19(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, an impairment that meets or medically equals a listed impairment establishes disability per se.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-01(d)

“The Social Security regulations list certain impairments, any of which is sufficient, at step three, to create an irrebuttable presumption of disability. The regulations also provide for a finding of such a disability per se if an individual has an impairment that is ‘equal to’ a listed impairment.”

At step three, § 416.920 requires comparing the claimant’s impairment with the listed impairments; meeting or equaling a listing establishes disability without further inquiry.

Mendez v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-23(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ first determines whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment in the Listing of Impairments (the “Listings”). See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). The Listings describe specific impairments that are recognized as severe enough to prevent a person from engaging in substantially gainful activities. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Each impairment is described using characteristics established through “symptoms, signs and laboratory findings.” Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099. To meet an impairment, a claimant must establish she meets each of the characteristics of the listed impairment. Id. To equal an impairment, a claimant must establish symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings “at least equal in severity and duration” to the characteristics of the listed impairment, or, if a claimant’s impairment is not listed, to the impairment “most like” the claimant’s own. Id. If a claimant meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant will be considered disabled without further inquiry. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). ... Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to establish he meets or equals a listed impairment and the ALJ’s conclusions are reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

At step three, the Commissioner determines whether a claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; meeting or equaling one results in disability without further inquiry.

Shawver v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-07(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ first determines whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment in the Listing of Impairments (the “Listings”). See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). The Listings describe specific impairments that are recognized as severe enough to prevent a person from engaging in substantially gainful activities. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. ... If a claimant meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant will be considered disabled without further inquiry. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At Step Three, a claimant is disabled if the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Spear v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-15(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant will be found “disabled” at Step Three of the sequential evaluation if his impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App'x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010).

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to proceed through a five-step sequential evaluation, and at step three a claimant is disabled without further inquiry if an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Jasic v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-19(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). Each Listing sets forth the “symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings” which must be established for a claimant’s impairment to meet the Listing. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099. If a claimant’s condition meets or equals a Listing, the claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). “Listed impairments are purposefully set at a high level of severity because ‘the listings were designed to operate as a presumption of disability that makes further inquiry unnecessary.’” Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990)).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to assess whether the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment and to apply the duration requirement.

Hale v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-19(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must assess whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals an impairment listed in the Appendix to the federal regulations (the Listings), 20 C.F.R. 404, subpart P, Appendix 1, and must satisfy the duration requirement, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

LaRoque v. O'Malley · filed 2022-09-21(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). Each Listing sets forth the “symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings” which must be established for a claimant’s impairment to meet the Listing. ... Plaintiff has not offered any analysis of the record or pointed to any objective evidence establishing the criteria of the listings. ... Accordingly, this argument is without merit.

Section 416.920(d) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether a claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment; meeting the listing results in a finding of disability.

Rushing v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-28(d)

At step three of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals an impairment contained in the Listings. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and the ALJ’s supporting discussion may be considered throughout the decision.

Nunez v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-30(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... The Court finds the ALJ did not err. First, there is no requirement that the ALJ’s discussion of evidence must occur at the step three determination. Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 513-14 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that the ALJ “discussed and evaluated the evidence” that claimant did not meet a listing, even though that discussion did not take place “under the heading ‘Findings’”). Further, the step three findings by the ALJ must also be read in conjunction with the entire ALJ decision. SSR 17-2p, 2017 WL 3928306, at *4. Here, under the step three finding the ALJ explained Plaintiff did not meet or equal the severity of any listed impairment, and also briefly explained findings related to the relevant listings. Tr. 24-26. Factual findings later in the ALJ’s decision describe evidence with sufficient specificity, adequately supporting the ALJ’s step three determination throughout the decision.

At step three of the disability evaluation, the adjudicator must evaluate the evidence against the relevant listed impairment and explain the conclusion sufficiently to permit meaningful judicial review.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(a)(4)(iii)

Instead, the Court remands this case for an appropriate step-three evaluation consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements under 5 U.S.C. § 557(c) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... The Sixth Circuit has interpreted the third step to require ALJs to “actually evaluate the evidence, compare it to the requirements of the relevant listing, and provide an explained conclusion, in order to facilitate meaningful judicial review.” ... The Court cannot conclude on this record that the ALJ opinion sufficiently explained its conclusion in a manner that allows for meaningful review of that determination.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine at step three whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant who meets or equals a listing is considered disabled without further inquiry.

Rose v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-02(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). Each Listing sets forth the “symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings” which must be established for a claimant’s impairment to meet the Listing. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099. If a condition meets or equals a Listing, the claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant is found disabled at step three, without further inquiry, when an impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

(SS) Her v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-18(d)

If a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or exceeds a “listing,” no specific finding is necessary as to the claimant’s ability to perform his or her past relevant work or any other jobs. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, § 416.920(d) requires a finding of disability when a claimant has a severe impairment that meets the duration requirement and meets or equals a listed impairment, without considering age, education, or work experience.

Arroyo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-22(d)

An individual is found disabled if the individual has an impairment(s) that meets or equals one of the listings in appendix 1 and meets the durational requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). The individual who meets the criteria is found disabled without considering age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires determining whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; meeting a listing results in a finding of disability.

Wheeler v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-03(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... To meet a mental health listing, Plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of the Paragraph A criteria for a specific listing, not just the Paragraph B or C criteria. ... As the Paragraph A criteria is not met for any listing, any error on the ALJ’s part regarding the Paragraph B or Paragraph C criteria would be harmless.

At step three, a claimant is disabled if the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Doimer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-16(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the decision-maker at step three to determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, using the listing’s specified symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings.

Smith v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-20(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). Each Listing sets forth the “symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings” which must be established for a claimant’s impairment to meet the Listing.

Section 416.920(d) makes step three turn on whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, in which event the claimant is found disabled without further inquiry.

(SS) Her v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-01(d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines whether “a claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in [20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1].” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999). If a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment he or she will be found disabled at this step without further inquiry. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires determining at step three whether a claimant's severe impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, and § 416.920(d) requires a finding of disability if it does, without considering age, education, or work experience.

Harris v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-24(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ considers whether a claimant’s severe impairment(s) meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments the Commissioner deems sufficiently severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P., app. 1. ... Thus, if a claimant’s medically severe impairment(s) meets or equals one of the listed impairments, she will be found disabled without considering her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Section 416.920(d) directs that a claimant is disabled without considering age, education, or work experience when an impairment meets the duration requirement and is listed or medically equals a listed impairment.

(SS) Larkin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-21(d)

An affirmative finding at step three results in a determination of disability without proceeding to steps four or five. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d) (“If you have an impairment(s) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment(s), we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.”); Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). ALJs must evaluate the relevant evidence before concluding that a claimant's impairments do not meet or equal a listing. A boilerplate finding on this point is insufficient.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant’s impairments, alone or in combination, meet or medically equal a listed impairment; satisfying that threshold establishes presumptive disability and ends the evaluation.

Scheib v. Commissioner · filed 2023-09-29(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the ALJ’s sequential evaluation, the ALJ considers whether a claimant’s impairments, either individually or combined, meet or medically equal the severity of an agency-listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(4)(iii). If the claimant satisfies this threshold, the claimant is presumptively disabled, and the ALJ’s evaluation ends. Id.

Section 416.920(d) requires the Commissioner at step three to determine whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Alfaro v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-11(d)

At step three of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals an impairment contained in the Listings. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Section 416.920 places the burden on the claimant at step three to show an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does not, evaluation continues to step four.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-12(a)(4)(iii), (d)-(e)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, plaintiff carries the burden to show that he has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpart P, App. 1. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... If a claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, he is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to step four. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d)-(e), 416.920(d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers, 582 F.3d at 653 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(c)(3)) (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”). ... As plaintiff has amply shown that he reasonably could meet or equal every requirement of Listings 12.03 A and C and 12.04 A and C, the Court finds the ALJ’s step three finding is not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does, the claimant is disabled without further inquiry.

Webb v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-18(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... If a claimant meets or equals a listing, the claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). ... If a claimant meets the listed criteria for disability, she will be found to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

Shaw v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-17(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to decide at step three whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and subsection (d) treats a qualifying impairment as per se disabling while requiring all criteria of the comparable listing for equivalence.

Burkholder v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-02(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At Step 3 of this sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether, singly or in combination, a claimant's ailments and impairments are so severe that they are per se disabling and entitle the claimant to benefits. As part of this step three disability evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant's alleged impairment is equivalent to a number of listed impairments, commonly referred to as listings, that are acknowledged as so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1; Burnett, 220 F.3d 112, 119. In making this determination, the ALJ is guided by several basic principles set forth by the social security regulations and case law. First, if a claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is considered disabled per se and is awarded benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119. However, to qualify for benefits by showing that an impairment, or combination of impairments, is equivalent to a listed impairment, a plaintiff bears the burden of presenting “medical findings equivalent in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar impairment.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). An impairment, no matter how severe, that meets or equals only some of the criteria for a listed impairment is not sufficient. Id.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and, if it does, find the claimant disabled.

Krueger v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-03(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ determines whether a claimant has “an impairment(s) that meets or equals” a listed impairment (a “Listing”). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the ALJ finds that the claimant’s impairment or impairments do meet or equal a Listing, the ALJ must determine that the claimant is disabled. See id.

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; meeting or equaling a listing establishes disability, but the claimant must present medical findings equivalent in severity to all criteria of the most similar listing.

Saltos v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-13(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At Step 3 of this sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether, singly or in combination, a claimant's ailments and impairments are so severe that they are per se disabling and entitle the claimant to benefits. As part of this step three disability evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant's alleged impairment is equivalent to a number of listed impairments, commonly referred to as listings, that are acknowledged as so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1; Burnett, 220 F.3d 112, 119. ... First, if a claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is considered disabled per se and is awarded benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119. However, to qualify for benefits by showing that an impairment, or combination of impairments, is equivalent to a listed impairment, a plaintiff bears the burden of presenting “medical findings equivalent in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar impairment.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). An impairment, no matter how severe, that meets or equals only some of the criteria for a listed impairment is not sufficient. Id. ... In this case, as we have discussed, the ALJ’s Step 3 analysis was thorough, careful, and detailed. It addressed the pertinent listing criteria and was supported by substantial evidence. There was no error in this regard.

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment, and must find the claimant disabled if it does.

Gordon v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-22(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ determines whether a claimant has an “impairment[] that meets or equals” a listed impairment (a “Listing”). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the ALJ finds that the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a Listing, the ALJ must find that the claimant is disabled. See id.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) directs the ALJ at step three to decide whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Vazquez v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-10-16(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether (singly or combined) the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meet or medically equal the severity of one of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“Listing of Impairments”). ... The Commissioner’s policy is clear that an ALJ is not required to articulate why a combination of impairments does not equal a listing in his step three analysis. ... Thus, to the extent Plaintiff argues this is an error, we are not persuaded. She does not develop the issue of whether the ALJ’s analysis at the subsequent steps is sufficient to permit meaningful review of the basis for his medical equivalency determination. Absent any specific argument, we conclude that it is. ... Thus, we find that the ALJ’s decision is sufficient to permit review of his medical equivalency finding. Remand is not required for further explanation of the ALJ’s conclusion that the combination of Plaintiff’s impairments did not equal listings 12.00 et seq.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires deciding at Step 3 whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and § 416.920(d) treats a claimant as disabled when it does.

Wheeler v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-24(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At Step 3 of this sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether a claimant’s impairments or combination of impairments are so severe that they are disabling, entitling the claimant to benefits. As part of this analysis, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s alleged impairment is equivalent to one or more listed impairments, commonly referred to as listings, that are acknowledged to be so severe as to preclude the claimant from working. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1; , 220 F.3d 112, 119. ... Thus, if a claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is considered disabled and is awarded benefits. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(d); , 220 F.3d at 119.

At step three, the regulation requires determining whether the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, and a finding that it does results in disability.

Boyd v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-09(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three, if the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments, the claimant will be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 381 F.App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). ... When considering whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, an ALJ must evaluate the evidence, compare it to the relevant listed impairment, and give an explained conclusion to facilitate meaningful judicial review, without which is it impossible to say the ALJ’s decision at Step Three is supported by substantial evidence. ... The ALJ correctly identified epilepsy was an analogous listing but, save for Mr. Boyd’s hearing testimony about the frequency of his headaches, did not compare the evidence with the criteria identified in SSR 19-4p. ... Thus, this analysis is deficient. ... The record raises a substantial question whether Mr. Boyd could medically equal Listing 11.02B. But the ALJ’s analysis of the record has two major faults so the ALJ’s cursory evaluation at Step Three warrants remand.

Section 416.920(d) requires a finding of disability and an award of benefits when an impairment is at least as severe as an enumerated impairment at step three.

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

If the impairment is as severe or more severe than one of the enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled and award benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

At step three, the Commissioner must assess the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments and determine whether they meet or equal a listed impairment.

Allen v. O'Malley · filed 2025-08-08(a)(4)(iii)

“At step three, the Commissioner considers the medical severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) and determines whether the impairment(s) meets or equals the criteria for a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.”

At step three, a claimant is disabled if the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; otherwise, the disability analysis proceeds to later steps.

Gonzales v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-02(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation, a claimant can establish disability if he shows that his impairment meets or equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... The ALJ thus determined that, but for his medication noncompliance, Plaintiff would have met or equaled Listing 11.02(A)—a determination that would have, in turn, compelled a finding of disability at step three.

At step three, if a claimant's impairment is as severe as or more severe than an enumerated impairment, the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled and award benefits.

Barber v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-04(d)

If the impairment is as severe or more severe than one of enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled and award benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, an ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if it does, the claimant is considered disabled and the evaluation ends.

OTTOBRE · filed 2025-12-19(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential analysis, an ALJ determines if the claimant’s impairment meets or is equal to one of the impairments listed in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant’s impairment is equivalent to a listed impairment, the claimant is considered disabled for the purposes of receiving SSI, and no further analysis is necessary. Id.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) places the evaluation of whether an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, including the paragraph B mental-functioning criteria, at step three of the sequential evaluation.

Moore · filed 2026-01-07(a)(4)(iii)

However, that determination is made at step three of the process to consider whether Plaintiff meets or medically equals the criteria of a listed impairment and evaluate the paragraph B criteria. See § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184.

At step three, a claimant is disabled if an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and the claimant bears the responsibility of establishing that it does.

Nickerson · filed 2026-03-17(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At step three, the ALJ considers whether one or more of a claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the Social Security regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). Each listing sets forth the “symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings” that must be established for a claimant’s impairment to meet the listing. ... If a claimant meets or equals a listing, the claimant is considered disabled with no need for further inquiry. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). ... It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prove that she is disabled at step three by establishing that she has an impairment that meets or equals a listing impairment.

At step three, § 416.920(d) treats a claimant as disabled when the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Jackman · filed 2026-03-24(d)

If a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment, the claimant is per se disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires a disability finding at step three when a claimant’s impairments meet the listed criteria.

Taylor v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-06(a)(4)(iii)

If Taylor’s impairments meet the B criteria, the ALJ was required to find her disabled. ... Based on this evidence alone, the ALJ properly could find that Taylor does not have any listed impairment.

At step three, a claimant who satisfies the requirements of Listing 12.05 is presumed disabled without proceeding to the next step.

Herman v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-26(a)(4)(iii)

An individual who satisfies the introductory paragraph and one of the subparagraphs of Listing 12.05 is presumed disabled without proceeding to the next step.

Section 416.920(d) directs a finding of disability at step three when a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment.

Marbury v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-10(d)

Thus, if the plaintiff meets or equals a Listing at step three (3) he is disabled and the five-step evaluation ends.

At step three, an impairment or combination of impairments must meet or medically equal a listed impairment to satisfy the listing test.

Forbes Sr. v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-30(d)

The Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination at step three that Plaintiff’s impairments, or combination of impairments, do not meet or medically equal the severity of one of the Listings.

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Griest · filed 2026-03-04(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ adequately explained her reasoning for such a limitation, and further, for her determination that Griest did not meet a listing. Accordingly, we find no error with the ALJ’s Step 3 determination.

At step three, an ALJ must address a listing the claimant specifically raised when the evidence arguably meets or equals it, so the decision permits meaningful judicial review.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-07(a)(4)(iii)

Under these circumstances, the ALJ’s complete failure to address Listing 3.02C in her written decision deprives this Court of a means by which to meaningfully review her step three conclusion.

At step three, the ALJ must evaluate all of a claimant’s severe impairments against potentially relevant listings; failing to do so is legal error.

Kevan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-10(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ will consider whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals in severity one of those listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and if it does, the ALJ will find the claimant to be disabled. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... Second, as discussed above, the ALJ is required to evaluate all of the claimant’s severe impairments at step three. His failure to do so was error.

A severe mental impairment at step two does not establish disability; the ALJ must assess its functional limitations before deciding whether it meets or equals a listing at step three.

Maykowski v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-30(a)(4)(iii)

As the Commissioner notes, even if the ALJ had concluded Plaintiff had a severe impairment, under the regulations, he would then have been required to assess the degree of functional limitation resulting from the claimant’s mental impairment before he could find that the severity of the claimant’s mental impairment met or equaled the severity of a listed mental impairment such that she was disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920a(b)(2), 416.920a(c)(3).

At step three, the ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Bynaker v. Colvin · filed 2025-08-13(a)(4)(iii)

There is a material difference between “meeting” and “equaling” a listing and both must be considered, both in general and specifically for Bynaker’s impairments of migraine headaches and fibromyalgia.

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in a claimant’s case record when evaluating a claim.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-03(a)(3)

When evaluating a claim, the ALJ considers all evidence in the claimant’s case record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3).

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the agency to consider all evidence in the case record when deciding whether a claimant is disabled.

BEACH v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2022-03-24(a)(3)

Neither the regulations nor decisions in this District support the adoption or application of such a rule. See, e.g., 404 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3) (Defendant “will consider all evidence in your case record when … mak[ing] a determination or decision whether you are disabled.”) (emphasis added).

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record, including evidence that predates or postdates the relevant period, when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Taylor v. Kijakazi(CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-25(a)(3)

An ALJ must consider “all evidence in [a claimant’s] case record when [the Commissioner] make[s] a determination or decision” as to whether the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3). “Such evidence includes evidence that pre- or post-dates the relevant time period.”

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the SSA to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Fisher v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-29(a)(3)

On remand, the ALJ will “consider all evidence in [Fisher’s] case record when [making] a determination or decision whether [he is] disabled,” see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3); if he continues to determine that a finding of disability is not proper despite the August 2016 MRI results, he will explain why this is the case.

Section 416.920 requires an impairment to last at least 12 months, so an impairment lasting exactly 12 months satisfies the duration requirement.

(SS) Valero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-07(a)

Given the phrasing of the question, Ms. Bastien’s affirmative response is consistent with the notion that the impairments could last 12 months (“12 months or less”) even with abstinence from substances and medication compliance. If the impairments lasted for exactly 12 months they would meet the durational requirement of 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, which requires the impairment to last “at least 12 months.”

At the third step, a claimant must satisfy the applicable listing and the duration requirement, meaning the impairment is expected to last continuously for 12 months.

Aguirre v. Saul · filed 2021-10-22(a)(4)(iii)

Indeed, the “duration requirement” mandates that an impairment must “be expected to last for a continuous period of 12 months.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.909; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) (to satisfy a listing the claimant must also “meet[] the duration requirement”). In other words, plaintiff has the burden of showing that he met each of the elements of a listing for a continuous period of 12 months.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the Commissioner at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment that has lasted or is expected to last at least 12 months.

Kelly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-12(a)(4), (a)(4)(ii)

“To determine if a claimant suffers from a qualifying disability under the Social Security Act, the Commissioner follows a five-step, sequential evaluation process.” ... “The only step at issue here, the second step, requires the Commissioner to consider whether claimant has: (1) a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, (2) that is severe, and (3) that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.”

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires a claimant to have a severe impairment, or combination of severe impairments, that meets the duration requirement in § 416.909; otherwise the claimant is not disabled.

Benson · filed 2025-10-30(a)(4)(ii)

Because his opinions did not address whether Benson had functional limitations that lasted for 12 months or longer, the assessed limitations do not meet the Social Security Administration’s duration requirement. ... 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) (“If you do not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement in § 416.909, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are not disabled.”)

Section 416.920(a)(4) treats steps two and four of the sequential disability evaluation as distinct stages.

Ayze v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-10(a)(4)

Steps two and four of the sequential evaluation are distinct. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4).

Section 416.920(b) requires evaluation of substantial gainful activity at step one, and section 416.920(c) requires evaluation of whether the claimant has a severe impairment limiting basic work activities at step two.

Garcia v. Saul · filed 2022-02-02(b), (c)

At the first step, the ALJ considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). If not, the ALJ proceeds to the second step and considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” which limits his or her mental or physical ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires consideration of all evidence in the case record, but an ALJ need not specifically discuss every item when the record shows the evidence was implicitly considered.

Tabb v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-16(a)(3)

Not only can Plaintiff’s § 416.912(b)(1) argument gain no purchase, but her continued insistence also that the ALJ’s decision violated § 416.920(a)(3) by not considering the evidence in the record that predated her application date fairs no better given that an ALJ “is not required to address every piece of evidence in the record.” ... Moreover, even though the ALJ did not explicitly refer to the MRI evidence of January 17, 2019 (see Doc. 11, PageID. 383-84) or any records generated by Dr. Barry Callahan in 2018 (see id., PageID. 328-62), there can be little question but that she implicitly considered this evidence. ... Accordingly, because the ALJ implicitly considered the MRI and Dr. Callahan evidence, through her review of the opinions of Drs. Hogan and Kuhn (and her finding regarding Tabb’s severe impairments), the undersigned can find no reversible error in the ALJ’s failure to specifically set out that evidence (predating the application date of February 6, 2019) in her decision.

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Downey v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-04(a)(3)

While “an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence,” she must “discuss the uncontroverted evidence [she] chooses not to rely upon, as well as significantly probative evidence [she] rejects.” Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record . . .”). Because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Dr. Herd’s opinion along with the other medical evidence, this Court is unable to adequately review her decision.

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all the evidence in the record when making a disability determination.

Muzio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-08(a)(3)

The ALJ is required to consider all the evidence in the record when making a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3).

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence, including medical opinions, when determining whether a claimant is disabled.

Romano v. Saul · filed 2022-03-18(a)(3)

An ALJ must consider all evidence, including medical opinions, in determining whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3).

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Dye v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-31(a)(3)

Rather, the ALJ only needed to consider such material, which he did. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled.”); see also 20 C.F.R. §416.920(a)(3) (same).

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the adjudicator to consider all evidence in the case record when evaluating disability.

Wilson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-30(a)(3)

This is particularly true given that not only is the ALJ to consider all the evidence in the case record, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3), but the regulations specifically contemplate the ALJ considering treatment such as “ongoing therapy” in their determination of disability in children, id. § 416.924a(b)(9)(ii). Without accounting for these records—or without an articulation of why they were omitted from her analysis—the ALJ has not made a “careful consideration of the entire record” (R. 16).

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the decision-maker to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled, including evidence predating the alleged onset date.

Vega v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-09(a)(3)

Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, the regulations do not preclude analysis of evidence that predates the alleged onset date. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3) (We will consider all evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled).

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires an ALJ determining disability to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record.

Kuehn v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-21(a)(3)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ considers all evidence in the claimant’s case record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3). ... The ALJ cannot simply omit an evaluation of other medical evidence. Accordingly, the ALJ erred by failing to evaluate Dr. Morey’s other medical evidence.

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires consideration of all evidence bearing on disability, not literally every document submitted into the record.

Perkins · filed 2026-04-22(a)(3)

Perkins, in a last-ditch effort, asserts that the ALJ must consider “all evidence” in reaching a disability determination. See DE 23 at 8 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3)). That’s true in a sense, but that blunt statement needs some whetting. “All evidence” refers to all evidence bearing on the issue of disability, not literally all evidence submitted as part of the record.

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires consideration of all evidence in the claimant’s record when evaluating disability.

Libin v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-06-22(a)(3)

In this case, the ALJ failed to consider all the evidence.

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires consideration of all evidence in the claimant’s case record, including significant evidence bearing on an impairment.

Cross v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-04(a)(3)

While “an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence,” he must “discuss the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon, as well as significantly probative evidence he rejects.” Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3) (“We will consider all evidence in your case record. . . .”).

At the RFC stage, the adjudicator must consider all medically determinable impairments, whether severe or non-severe.

Gonzalez v. Saul · filed 2021-09-17(e)

Further, a finding regarding the severity of Plaintiff’s physical impairments could impact the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC, because when assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, both severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), 416.945; see Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 (“In assessing RFC, the adjudicator must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments [because] limitations due to such a ‘not severe’ impairment may prevent an individual from performing past relevant work or may narrow the range of other work that the individual may still be able to do.”).

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, both severe and non-severe, when assessing residual functional capacity.

Bradshaw v. Saul · filed 2021-10-19(e)

In addition, when assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, both severe and non-severe.

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity when the claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment.

Lopez v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-12-16(e)

“If the impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC, which is [the claimant’s] ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from [his] impairments.”

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) treats an impairment as non-severe when it causes no more than minimal limitation on a claimant’s ability to perform basic work-related activities.

Edmiston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-15(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ concluded that the medical evidence did not show that Edmiston’s carpal tunnel syndrome caused more than minimal functional limitations on her ability to perform basic work-related activities. (R. 23). An impairment that has no significant effect on a claimant’s work- related activities is “non- severe”. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c), 416.920a(d)(1), 416.922.

Section 416.920 sets out the five-step sequential evaluation process for deciding whether a claimant is disabled, but it is not the applicable regulation for evaluating continuation or cessation of disability.

Sherman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-23(d)

Next, the applicable regulation for evaluating the continuation or cessation of a disability is Section 404.1594, not Sections 416.920 and 404.1520. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a), 404.1520(a) (“This section explains the five-step sequential evaluation process we use to decide whether you are disabled”). Moreover, Plaintiff does not identify how the ALJ failed to abide by Sections 416.920(d) and 404.1520(d) or POMS DI 24580.005 and DI 34131.013. Thus, the Court does not find any error in the ALJ’s decision on this basis.

Section 416.920(a) places the burden on the claimant to prove that they are disabled.

Riddle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-09(a)

However, the ALJ’s duty to develop the record cannot be used to shift the burden of proving disability to the ALJ. See Mays, 276 F.3d at 460. The burden to present evidence of disability remains on Petitioner. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (“An individual shall not be considered to be under a disability unless he furnishes such medical and other evidence of the existence thereof as the Commissioner of Social Security may require.”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a) (“[Y]ou have to prove to us that you are...disabled....”).

Section 416.920(a) is a parallel disability-benefit regulation that is verbatim and creates no substantive legal distinction based on the benefit type.

CLARK v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-09-26(a)

The Code of Federal Regulations contains separate, parallel sections pertaining to disability benefits under the different titles of the Social Security Act, such as the one cited here that is applicable to disability insurance benefits. Often, as is the case here, the parallel section pertaining to the other type of benefits—in this case disability insurance benefits—is verbatim and makes no substantive legal distinction based on the benefit type. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a).

Section 416.920 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s father’s report as evidence in evaluating disability.

Tannehill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-04(a)(3)

The applicable regulations do not require the ALJ to weigh the Plaintiff’s father’s report, or to address ... the consistency or supportability of that report, but they do require that the ALJ must consider this evidence.

An error at step four of the disability evaluation is harmless when a valid alternative step-five finding establishes that the claimant can perform other work.

T. L. v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-03(a)(4)

But even assuming that she is correct that the ALJ erred at step four, the ALJ made alternative findings at step five of the sequential evaluation process, concluding that T.L. could perform “other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy.” (Admin. Rec. at 1662). Thus, because the ALJ correctly determined T.L.’s RFC—an element of both the step four and step five inquiries—any mistake made by the ALJ at step four was harmless.

Section 416.920(f) requires comparing the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work at step four.

Burrow v. Barnhart · filed 2007-03-07(f)

The ALJ also erred by failing to include Burrow’s mental impairments in his step four analysis. The ALJ thus failed to make the required “specific find*616ings of fact” regarding Burrow’s residual capacity and past work as impacted by all of her impairments in combination. See SSR 82-62 (“Evaluation ... requires careful consideration of the interaction of the limiting effects of the person’s impairment(s) and the physical and mental demands of his or her PRW [past relevant work] to determine whether the individual can still do that work.”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f) (“[The ALJ] will compare [his] residual functional capacity assessment ... with the physical and mental demands of your past relevant work.”).

Section 416.920(e) places on the claimant the burden of showing that her residual functional capacity is insufficient to perform her past relevant work; failure to meet that burden results in denial of benefits.

Salles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-06-26(e)

At Step Four, the Commissioner determines whether, despite her severe impairments, the claimant retains the RFC to perform her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), (f), 416.920(e), (f). ... Salles bears the burden of demonstrating that she lacks sufficient RFC to perform her past relevant work; if she fails to meet this burden, she will be denied benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).

At step four, the claimant bears the burden of showing that her residual functional capacity is insufficient to perform her past relevant work.

Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-03-20(e)

Lopez bears the burden of demonstrating that she lacks sufficient RFC to perform her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).

Section 416.920(f) requires the ALJ to make specific findings about the demands of a claimant’s past relevant work and the claimant’s ability to meet those demands.

Reynolds v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-24(f)

Turning to the step-four challenge, while we agree with Reynolds that the ALJ committed legal error in the step-four analysis by failing to make specific findings regarding the demands of her PRW and her ability to meet those demands, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f); SSR 82-61, 82-62, that error is harmless given the ALJ’s RFC assessment and step-five determination, both of which are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to compare the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work, using sufficient and explicit documentation, before finding that the claimant can return to that work.

Rosa v. Astrue · filed 2010-04-28(e)

According to the Secretary's interpretation, sections 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e) require careful consideration of the interaction of the limiting effects of the person's impairment(s) and the physical and mental demands of his or her PRW to determine whether the individual can still do that work.... The decision as to whether the claimant retains the functional capacity to perform past work which has current relevance has far-reaching implications and must be developed and explained fully in the disability decision. Since this is an important and, in some instances, a controlling issue, every effort must be made to secure evidence that resolves the issues as clearly and explicitly as circumstances permit.

At step four, a claimant is not disabled if the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Freddie McCrea, Jr v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-04(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, a claimant will be found not disabled if he can return to his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). ... Given that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that McCrea could perform past relevant work as a janitor, remand is appropriate.

At step four, a claimant is not disabled when substantial evidence shows that the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work.

Giunta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-12-05(a)(4)(iv)

Here, there was substantial evidence suggesting that Giunta retained a residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work as a “light duty” computer technician, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.960(b)(1) (defining “past relevant work”), including objective medical evidence, physician testimony and reports, and Giunta’s own behavior in working as a computer technician after sustaining his injuries.

At step four of the disability evaluation, the regulation requires assessing whether the claimant can perform past relevant work based on her residual functional capacity; a finding that she can ends the analysis without proceeding to step five.

Miles v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2012-03-15(e)

The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step evaluation process used to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237–39 (11th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(1), (4)(i)-(v). The evaluation considers each step in turn, asking: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) whether, based on an RFC assessment, the claimant can perform any of her past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform, given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. See Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237–39. The ALJ determined that Miles met the first two steps of the SSR’s five-step process. At the third step, however, the ALJ found that Miles’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. Proceeding to the fourth step, the ALJ also found that Miles retained the RFC to perform her past relevant work, despite her impairment, during the claim period (1991–1998). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), (f). Concluding that Miles had the requisite RFC, the ALJ had no need to proceed to the fifth and final step of the analysis. See id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

At step four, the claimant must show, based on residual functional capacity, that the impairment prevents performance of past relevant work.

Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-19(a)(4)(iv)

Fourth, the claimant must show, based on the RFC, that his impairment prevents him from performing his “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

At step four, the decision-maker determines whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Richardson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-04-29(a)(4)(iv)

Moving to step four, the ALJ must determine, as in this case, whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv), (e)-(f).

At step four, the regulation requires determining whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Taylor v. SSA · filed 2013-08-08(a)(4)(iv)

The ALJ did err, however, at step four of the analysis when he concluded that Taylor was able to perform his past relevant work despite his impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

At Step Four, the ALJ must identify the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work and determine whether those demands are compatible with the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Zelda Renette Holder v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-05-01(f)

To answer that question, the ALJ must first assess the claimant’s “residual functional capacity,” which the Social Security Administration defines as “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(1). The ALJ must then identify “the physical and mental demands” of the claimant’s past work and see if those demands are compatible with her current abilities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). ... The Work History Report, the testimony of Holder and the vocational expert, and the DOT combine to paint a full picture of Holder’s past relevant work—both as she performed it herself, and as it is generally performed. There was enough evidence in the record for the ALJ to compare Holder’s current abilities to the physical demands of her previous employment. Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ satisfied its duty to develop a full and fair record as to the requirements of Holder’s past work.

At the fourth step, a claimant is not disabled if she can still perform her past relevant work.

Boone v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-03(a)(4)(iv)

As alluded to above, a claimant will be found not disabled if she can return to her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv) (“At the fourth step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your past relevant work. If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.”). ... Because Boone has not rebutted the presumption that her work as a cleaner/housekeeper in 2002 was substantial gainful activity, the Court finds that Boone has not established that this work experience was not past relevant work. Barnes, supra, 932 F.2d at 1359. Accordingly, the finding of the ALJ that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as a “cleaner, housekeeping” is supported by substantial evidence (as more fully set out below) and no error of law is shown.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv) treats a claimant as not disabled at step four when the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work, including work as actually performed despite a DOT classification mismatch.

Ferguson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-06(a)(4)(iv)

As noted, at Step Four the claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner determines the claimant retains the RFC to perform work he has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). See also Keyser, 648 F.3d at 724. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes the ALJ did not err because he properly relied on the VE's testimony to determine that Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work as janitor as it was actually performed regardless of the DOT classification.

At step four of the sequential evaluation, a claimant must prove that he cannot perform his past relevant work as he performed it or as it is generally performed in the national economy.

Monahan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-26(a)(4)(iv)

At the fourth step of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is capable of performing his past relevant work. ... Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that he cannot perform his past relevant work either as he performed it or as it is generally performed in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(a)(4)(iv); Barnes, 932 F.2d at 1359; Jackson v. Bowen, 801 F.2d 1291, 1293-94 (11th Cir. 1986). ).

At step four, the regulation requires assessing whether a claimant can perform past relevant work, with the inquiry moving to step five if the claimant cannot.

Shepard v. Saul · filed 2019-09-23(a)(4)

If not, at step four, the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) is assessed to determine if the claimant can perform his past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant, based on his age, education, work experience, and RFC, can perform other substantial gainful work. If the claimant cannot perform other work, then he is found to be disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). ... The ALJ gave short shrift to plaintiff's description of her past occupation as a teacher’s assistant and his determination that she is capable of performing her past relevant work cannot be upheld.

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider and weigh all evidence in the case record, including relevant evidence from sources who are not acceptable medical sources.

Alcantara v. Astrue · filed 2007-12-12(a)(3)

The ALJ could not simply ignore Serabian's opinion. Although acceptable medical sources are the primary sources of evidence about the severity of impairment and its effect on work abilities, they are not the sole permissible sources of such evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.913(d); 416.929(c)(3). Serabian was a medical source capable of providing evidence about the severity and effects of impairment, as well as a general source of evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.902, 416.912(b), 416.913(d), 416.945(a). The ALJ was required to weigh all of the evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(3), 416.920a (a) & (c); 416.927(c).

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the claimant’s case record when deciding whether the claimant is disabled.

Ryan v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-01(a)(3)

Restated, the ALJ must consider all evidence in the record. See Armstead ex. rel. Villanueva v. Astrue, No, 1:04-CV-503, 2008 WL 4517813, at *18 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3)).

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the case record before deciding whether a claimant is eligible for disability benefits.

Hamedallah ex rel. E.B. v. Astrue · filed 2012-06-25(a)(3)

An ALJ has a legal duty to consider “all evidence” in the case record before making a determination as to whether a claimant is eligible for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3); see Sutherland v. Barnhart, 322 F.Supp.2d 282, 289 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (“It is not proper for the ALJ to simply pick and choose from the transcript only such evidence as supports his determination, without affording consideration to evidence supporting the plaintiffs claims. It is grounds for remand for the ALJ to ignore parts of the record that are probative of the plaintiffs disability claim.”); see also Lopez v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 728 F.2d 148, 150-51 (2d Cir.1984) (“We have remanded cases when it appears that the ALJ has failed to consider relevant and probative evidence which is available to him.”).

Section 416.920(a) requires the ALJ to consider an other-source opinion as part of all relevant evidence when evaluating disability.

Corson v. SSA · filed 2013-11-01(a)

To be sure, the ALJ is still required to consider Blood’s opinion as part of “all of the relevant evidence.” See Alcantara v . Astrue, 257 F. App’x 333, 335 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a), ( c ) ) .

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence of a claimant’s impairments when making a disability determination.

Kellberg v. Colvin · filed 2013-11-15(a)(3)

Likewise, an ALJ must consider all the evidence of a claimant’s impairments when making a disability determination. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(B); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(3).

Section 416.920(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions as part of all relevant evidence when deciding whether a claimant is disabled.

Martel v. SSA · filed 2013-11-18(a)

The ALJ is clearly required to evaluate each of these opinions as part of “all of the relevant evidence.” See Alcantara v . Astrue, 257 F. App’x 333, 335 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a), (c)).

Section 416.920(f) requires comparing a claimant's residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of the claimant's past relevant work.

Manuel Jr. v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-07(f)

At step four of the sequential analysis, the claimant has the burden of showing that he or she can no longer perform past relevant work. ... The claimant must be able to perform: 1. The actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job; or 2. The functional demands and job duties of the occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national economy. ... see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f) (“we will compare our residual functional capacity assessment . . . with the physical and mental demands of your past relevant work”).

At step four, the claimant bears the burden of presenting affirmative evidence that the claimant cannot sustain workplace performance or perform past relevant work.

Cockrell v. Saul · filed 2020-03-20(a)(4)(iv)

Cockrell bears the burden to present affirmative evidence that he cannot sustain workplace performance. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). But he did not do so because the guardianship order was the only new evidence he presented, and it is not a medical record, nor does it show a sufficient basis for its findings. Thus, the Appeals Council was justified its decision. Cockrell’s argument is without merit.

Section 416.920(f) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Newell v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-04-28(f)

At step four of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the RFC to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). ... Given the inconsistencies in the record regarding whether Plaintiff is able to perform his part work as a security guard as generally performed, and the lack of an explanation for the inconsistencies, the ALJ erred at step four of her analysis.

At step four, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can perform past relevant work based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, requiring consideration of the actual nature of that past work, including whether it was a composite job.

Walterich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-30(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, an ALJ considers whether a claimant is capable of performing his or her past relevant work based on the RFC determined by the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a)(4)(iv).

Section 416.920(f) requires the ALJ, at step four of the sequential disability evaluation, to determine whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Hart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-18(f)

At step four of the five step sequential evaluation process for determining whether an individual is disabled, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the RFC to perform the requirements of his past relevant work. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). ... As thoroughly discussed above, the RFC was supported by substantial evidence and therefore the ALJ was permitted to rely on the VE’s testimony indicating plaintiff can perform his past relevant work.

Section 416.920(e) places the burden at step four on the claimant to show that the claimant can no longer perform past relevant work.

Pierce v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-28(e)

Plaintiff bears the burden at step four of demonstrating that he can no longer perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e)-(f); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 25 (2003).

At step four, a claimant who can perform past relevant work is found not disabled, so the sequential analysis stops there.

Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-03(a)(4)

If Plaintiff was indeed able to perform her past relevant work, then the ALJ’s analysis should have stopped there, since an ability to perform past relevant work leads to a finding of not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4).

At step four, § 416.920(4)(iv) requires considering whether a claimant can perform past relevant work; if the claimant can, the claimant is not disabled at that step.

Bodley v. Saul · filed 2021-01-20(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether a claimant can engage in his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(4)(iv). If a claimant can do his or her past relevant work, the claimant is found not disabled at step four. Id. ... To the extent the ALJ erred at step four, this error is harmless.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv) provides that a claimant is not disabled at step four when the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work; otherwise the evaluation proceeds to step five.

MATTA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-03-31(a)(4)(iv)

The claimant is not disabled if his RFC allows him to perform his past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). However, if the claimant's RFC prevents him from doing so, an administrative law judge proceeds to the fifth and final step of the process. (Id.)

Section 416.920(f) requires the ALJ to determine at step four whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Lucas v. Saul · filed 2021-07-16(f)

At step four of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the RFC to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f).

At step four, the regulation requires assessing whether a claimant can perform past relevant work; if so, the claimant is not disabled.

Evans v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-23(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must assess Plaintiff’s RFC and consider Plaintiff’s ability to perform past relevant work (“PRW”). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the plaintiff can perform her past relevant work as generally performed or as actually performed, she is not disabled.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv) requires a finding of not disabled when a claimant can still perform her past relevant work.

Ortizquinones v. Saul · filed 2021-08-09(a)(4)(iv)

As the regulation provides, “If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

At step four, the Commissioner considers the claimant’s residual functional capacity and past relevant work, and finds the claimant not disabled if the claimant can still perform that past work.

Sowers v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-18(a)(4)(iv)

The regulations provide, “[a]t the fourth step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your past relevant work. If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a) (4)(iv). The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff at step four, but the ALJ still has a duty to make the requisite factual findings to support his conclusions. ... The ALJ’s findings at step four are supported by substantial evidence and are legally sufficient.

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ at step four to determine, in light of the claimant’s residual functional capacity, whether the claimant can return to past substantial gainful activity.

De Lisle v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-05(e)

At step four of the sequential evaluation for disability determinations, the ALJ must determine whether, in light of Plaintiff’s RFC, she can return to past substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).

At step four, § 416.920(f) places the burden on the claimant to show inability to perform past relevant work and requires evaluating the claimant's residual functional capacity against the demands of that work.

LIBERTY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2021-11-10(f)

This appeal turns on the supportability of the ALJ’s finding at Step 4, at which stage the claimant bears the burden of proving inability to return to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). At this step, the commissioner must make findings of the plaintiff’s RFC and the physical and mental demands of past work and determine whether the plaintiff’s RFC would permit performance of that work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f); Social Security Ruling 82-62 (“SSR 82-62”), reprinted in West’s Social Security Reporting Service Rulings 1975-1982, at 813.

At step four, the Commissioner determines whether a claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work, including as generally performed in the national economy.

Schler v. Saul · filed 2022-03-23(a)(4)(iv)

At Step Four of the five-step disability evaluation process, the ALJ is required to evaluate whether, with her RFC, a claimant can perform her past relevant work. ... A claimant is not disabled if she can perform either “[t]he actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job” or “[t]he functional demands and job duties of the occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national economy.” ... Because Schler could perform her past relevant work as a head waitress as it is generally performed, the ALJ properly determined that Schler was not disabled.

At step four, § 416.920(a)(4)(iv) requires evaluating the claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to return to past relevant work.

Neals v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-23(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC and assesses his ability to return to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). The ALJ is required to make specific findings in three phases at this step.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work in light of the claimant's residual functional capacity, including by properly examining the demands of potentially composite past work.

Augustin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-25(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ considers whether a claimant is capable of performing his or her past relevant work based on the RFC determined by the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a)(4)(iv). “Pursuant to both case law and Social Security Ruling 82–62, in order to determine at step four whether a claimant is able to perform her past work, the ALJ must make a specific and substantial inquiry into the relevant physical and mental demands associated with the claimant's past work, and compare these demands to the claimant's residual capabilities.”

Section 416.920(f) requires the ALJ at step four to determine whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work.

Boller v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-22(f)

At step four of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f).

At step four, § 416.920(f) ends the disability inquiry with a finding of not disabled when the claimant can perform past relevant work, so the ALJ need not proceed to step five.

Grable v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-20(f)

Having appropriately concluded that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work, the ALJ did not need to proceed to step five in the sequential analysis, and the inquiry could have stopped there. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(f) & (g), 416.960(b)(3) & (c).

At step four, the claimant bears the burden of showing that he cannot perform his past relevant work, while the ALJ must compare the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the work’s actual or generally performed demands.

Naylor v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-31(e)

As discussed above, at step four, the ALJ must consider whether the plaintiff has “the residual functional capacity to perform the requirements of his past relevant work[,]” which is defined as work performed either as the claimant “actually performed it” or as it is “generally performed in the national economy” within the past 15 years. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(f), 416.960(b)(1)-(2). The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that he can no longer perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e); Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 2001). However, “[a]lthough the burden of proof lies with the claimant at step four, the ALJ still has a duty to make the requisite factual findings to support his conclusion.” Id. To do so, the ALJ must compare the claimant’s RFC to the physical and mental demands of the past relevant work. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e)-(f), 416.960(b). If the claimant retains the RFC to perform either “the actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job” or “the functional demands and job duties of the occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national economy[,]” then he will be found not disabled. Pinto, 249 F.3d at 844; SSR 82-61, 1982 WL 31387, at *2 (Jan. 1, 1982).

Section 416.920(f) requires the ALJ to decide at step four whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work; if so, the sequential analysis ends there.

Neary v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-24(f)

The fourth step requires the ALJ to consider whether the claimant’s RFC precludes the performance of his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). ... Substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s step four finding that Plaintiff’s deli slicer job was past relevant work and that she would be able to perform this work as it is generally performed in the national economy. ... Given that Plaintiff has not sustained her burden to demonstrate that she is unable to do her past relevant work, the ALJ concluded the analysis at step four and was not required to undertake a step-five analysis of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv) requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work before proceeding to the final step.

Bryson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-15(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant retains the RFC to perform his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) (stating that a claimant is not disabled if he or she is able to return to past relevant work); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv) (same); Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 428 (3d Cir. 1999).

Section 416.920(e) places the burden on the claimant at step four to show that she cannot perform her past relevant work, while requiring the ALJ to compare her residual functional capacity with the demands of that work.

Sullivan v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-25(e)

As discussed above, at step four, the ALJ must consider whether the plaintiff has “the residual functional capacity to perform the requirements of [her] past relevant work[,]” which is defined as work performed either as the claimant “actually performed it” or as it is “generally performed in the national economy” within the past 15 years. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(f), 416.960(b)(1)-(2). The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that she can no longer perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e); Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 2001). However, “[a]lthough the burden of proof lies with the claimant at step four, the ALJ still has a duty to make the requisite factual findings to support his conclusion.” Id. To do so, the ALJ must compare the claimant’s RFC to the physical and mental demands of the past relevant work. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e)-(f), 416.960(b). If the claimant retains the RFC to perform either “the actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job” or “the functional demands and job duties of the occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national economy[,]” then she will be found not disabled.

At step four, § 416.920(a)(4)(iv) requires determining whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity permits past relevant work; mild mental limitations need not produce RFC restrictions when the ALJ considered them and found no functional effect.

Dyer, III v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-28(a)(4)(iv)

If the Commissioner finds the claimant’s severe impairments do not meet or medically equal a listed impairment, then the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), (e)–(f); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv), (e)–(f). ... Here, at step four, the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments, including any mental impairments, in assessing Plaintiff’s RFC. For these reasons, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC assessment.

At step four, § 416.920 requires determining whether a claimant can perform past relevant work, and the court applied that rule by allowing comparison with the work as generally performed in the national economy.

(SS) Compean v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-27(a)(4)(iv)

At step four, a claimant has the burden of showing that they can no longer perform their past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); id. § 416.920(e). ... In evaluating the fact that, as performed, Plaintiff’s job consisted of medium work rather than light work, the ALJ was permitted to use either the “actually performed test” or the “generally performed test.” See SSR 82-61. ... The “generally performed test” provides that, if a job previously performed by a claimant has functional demands and duties greatly in excess of those generally required for the job by other employers in the national economy, and the claimant cannot perform these duties, she is “not disabled” if she can still perform the functional demands and duties of the job as generally required by employers in the national economy. See id. ... As the ALJ did not misclassify Plaintiff’s previous work according to its least demanding function, properly relied on the VE testimony, and accurately applied the “generally performed” test, substantial evidence supports his determination at step four.

At step four, if a claimant can still perform past relevant work, the agency must find the claimant not disabled and end the sequential evaluation rather than proceed to an alternative step-five finding.

Keene v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-25(a)(4)(iv)

The Court finds no authority for an ALJ to make such an alternative determination. Here, the ALJ was required to end the evaluation at step four and find that plaintiff was not disabled: ... (iv) At the fourth step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your past relevant work. If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled. See paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section and § 416.960(b).

Section 416.920(f) governs step four by asking whether a claimant's residual functional capacity permits performance of past relevant work as actually performed or as generally performed in the national economy.

Tano v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-29(f)

A Plaintiff is not disabled if he retains the RFC to perform the “actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job” or the “functional demands and job duties of the occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national economy.” Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 82–61, 1982 WL 31387, at *2; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). At Step Four, the ALJ is required to make the requisite factual findings to support his conclusion that Plaintiff can perform past relevant work.

At the fourth step, a claimant whose impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment must show that they cannot perform past relevant work.

Soto v. Apfel · filed 1999-11-15(e)

If the claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal one of the listed impairments, as a fourth step, he will have to show that he cannot perform his past relevant work.

At step four, an unreasonable classification of a claimant’s past relevant work cannot support a finding that the claimant can perform it; the agency must then conduct step five.

Walker v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-06(e)

Therefore, the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff could perform past work as food service director is an unreasonable interpretation of the record. Instead, the record indicates that plaintiff held a composite job, as he contends. ... Thus, the error is not harmless, and this matter must be remanded for further proceedings, including a proper step five analysis.