20 C.F.R. § 416.920

At step two, the claimant bears the burden of establishing a severe, medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments.

Welch v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-21(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential analysis, it is the claimant’s burden to establish that they have a severe, medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments.

At step two, the decision maker determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; if the impairment is severe, the evaluation proceeds to the next step.

Olsen v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-25(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines which of claimant’s alleged impairments are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits” a claimant’s “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 404.1520(c). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s characterization of Plaintiff’s migraines as non-severe is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as non-severe when it does not significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Duke v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-06(c)

A “severe” impairment is one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Gwathney v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 1997); ...; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) (2007). It has “more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.” ... Here the ALJ could correctly determine her mental impairments were non-severe. While Plaintiff makes fair arguments, I find the ALJ’s step-two decision to be supported by substantial evidence.

Section 416.920(c) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether a medically determinable impairment is severe because it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Stark v. Colvin · filed 2024-12-10(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. This involves a two-step process: 1) determining whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment and 2), if so, determining whether the impairment is severe.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) makes step two a threshold inquiry into whether the claimant has a severe impairment; a claimant cannot be found disabled at step two.

Grier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-11(a)(4)(ii)

At step two in the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers the medical severity of a claimant’s impairments. 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.” Id. Step two is merely a “threshold inquiry” after which claims based on the most trivial impairments may be rejected. ... In other words, a claimant cannot be found disabled at step two.

At step two, § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires a claimant to have a severe impairment or combination of impairments that has lasted or is expected to last for 12 continuous months.

GONZALEZ v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2025-02-18(a)(4)(ii)

Initially, I note that the ALJ appears to have conflated step two’s severity and durational requirements. Step two of the evaluation requires the claimant to establish that he or she has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that has lasted or is expected to last for 12 continuous months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii); 416.909. A non-severe impairment is a “slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities which have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.” Newell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 347 F.3d 541, 546 (3d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Here, the ALJ stated, “[t]here is little evidence in the record that this impairment causes more than a minimal impact on basic work activities for 12 continuous months during the alleged period of disability.” Tr. at 20. This statement is ambiguous as to whether the ALJ found Plaintiff’s back impairment to meet the severity requirement, independent of the durational requirement. Nevertheless, the ALJ’s later analysis clears up the ambiguity. The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s back impairment posed more than a minimal limitation on his ability to perform work because the ALJ specifically found that Dr. Monfared’s assessment was not persuasive, based on limitations imposed by Plaintiff’s back impairment. Id. at 27. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had a severe back impairment (resulting in more than a minimal effect on his ability to work), but that the back impairment had not lasted for 12 consecutive months. In any event, any error in this respect is harmless for the reasons discussed herein.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the adjudicator to determine at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments meeting the duration requirement.

Beard v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-10(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ did not sufficiently consider Ms. Beard’s mental impairments at step two. Step two involves a determination of whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments which is “severe” and meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A “severe” impairment significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

At Step Two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits basic work abilities; failing to find a severe impairment is not harmless when that error ends the sequential evaluation before later steps.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-27(a)(4)(ii), (c)

An ALJ evaluates the “medical severity” of a claimant’s impairments at Step Two of the sequential evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii.) An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” if it “significantly limits [an individual’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... Additionally, given that any impairment that is more than a “slight abnormality” should be considered severe, the undersigned finds that the ALJ’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. ... However this harmless error rule does not apply because the ALJ did not find any severe impairments at Step Two. The ALJ therefore did not proceed to the next steps of the sequential evaluation and did not assess any RFC limitations. Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ’s error was not harmless because it prejudiced Plaintiff on the merits.

At Step 2, § 416.920(c) requires determining whether medically determinable impairments are severe, meaning they significantly limit the claimant's ability to perform work-related activities.

Ortiz v. O'Malley · filed 2025-04-02(c)

At Step 2, the ALJ determines whether a claimant has medically determinable impairments, and, if so, whether such impairments are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).4 A medically determinable impairment is considered “severe” if it significantly limits a claimant's ability to do work-related activities.5 Id. ... In light of the record and the low hurdle at Step 2, it is difficult to see how the ALJ could have concluded that the Plaintiff’s diabetes was so de minimis as to be non-severe, since her symptoms, even if partially credited, would seem to substantiate something more than “minimal limitations” on her ability to carry out work-related activities.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment; an error in that determination is harmless when the ALJ identifies other severe impairments and considers all impairments in formulating the RFC.

Morton v. Dudek · filed 2025-04-22(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine if a claimant suffers from a severe impairment. Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007). See also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is a medically determinable impairment that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.922(a). ... Thus, even if the ALJ erred in concluding that Plaintiff’s diabetes mellitus was not a severe impairment at step two, such error was harmless because the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff's impairments, severe and non-severe, when formulating the RFC.

Section 416.920(c) requires a claimant to have an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities to proceed beyond step two; a claim ends at step two when no severe impairment is shown.

KEITH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-04-29(c)

At step two, the ALJ decides whether the plaintiff has a “severe impairment” or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If the plaintiff does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, then the inquiry ends because the plaintiff is not disabled. Otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to step three. ... In the present case, as previously discussed, the ALJ found at step two that Plaintiff had the medically determinable impairments of degenerative disc disease, a disc herniation, hypertension, and arthritis, but nevertheless determined that Plaintiff did not have a severe impairment.

At step two, an ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment; if a severe impairment is found, the evaluation proceeds, and a step-two error may be harmless when later steps properly account for non-severe impairments.

Pratt v. Bisignano · filed 2025-05-20(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, an ALJ may find impairments or combinations of impairments to be non-severe “if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to work.” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 85-28, 1985 SSR LEXIS 19 at *8, 1985 WL 56856, at *3. Nevertheless, where, as here, the ALJ finds at step two that a claimant has a severe impairment, he proceeds to the next step in the sequential analysis. See Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An ALJ must consider the limiting effects of all impairments, including those that he found non-severe, when formulating the claimant’s RFC. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). Consequently, an ALJ’s step two error may be harmless if the ALJ considered and properly accounted for the symptoms from the non-severe impairment at later steps.

Section 416.920 requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether a claimant has a medically determinable impairment and, if so, whether it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Kiehl v. Bisignano · filed 2025-05-28(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

At step two, the regulation requires a finding of not disabled when the claimant lacks a severe medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, that satisfies the duration requirement.

DeVore v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-11(a)(4)(ii)

“If [a claimant does] 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, [the Commissioner] will find that [the claimant is] not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii); ... Because the ALJ supported the decision to find no severe impairment at step two with substantial evidence, the Court will not disturb that finding here.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits basic work activities and satisfies the required duration.

Corhn v. Colvin · filed 2025-08-04(c)

Second, the claimant must have a “severe” impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). To be considered severe, a medical impairment must significantly limit physical or mental ability to do basic work activities and must be of twelve months duration or be expected to last for at least twelve months. (Id.) ... In conclusion, the ALJ did not err in finding obesity to be a non-severe impairment.

Section 416.920(b) requires a step-two finding of severity based on whether an impairment significantly limits basic work activities, and permits a not-severe finding for only a slight abnormality with no more than a minimal work effect.

Fickelscherer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-19(b)

“At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... “Although the Second Circuit has held that this step is limited to screening out de minimis claims. . .the mere presence of a disease or impairment, or establishing that a person has been diagnosed or treated for a disease or impairment is not, by itself, sufficient to render a condition ‘severe.’” ... “Indeed, a finding of ‘not severe’ should be made if the medical evidence establishes only a ‘slight abnormality’ which would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.” ... “The ALJ thus did not err in concluding at step two of the analysis that plaintiff’s mental impairments were not severe.”

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment; an impairment is severe when it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Ratcliff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-02(a)(4)(ii)

“At step two of the disability analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has any ‘severe medically determinable’ impairments.” ... A “severe impairment” is one that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the claimant does not suffer from a severe impairment, the claimant is not disabled. See id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities to qualify as severe; any step-two error is harmless when the ALJ identifies other severe impairments and continues the sequential evaluation.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-10(c)

Second, the claimant must show that she suffers from a “severe impairment” in order to warrant a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). A “severe impairment” is one that “significantly limits . . . physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)). ... When an ALJ finds severe and non-severe impairments at Step Two and continues with the subsequent steps in the sequential evaluation process, any error at Step Two is harmless.

Section 416.920(c) requires a claimant to show at step two that a severe impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Whitelocke · filed 2025-11-05(c)

At step two, the claimant must demonstrate that he has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that limits the claimant’s ability to perform physical or mental work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that ALJ Kilgannon’s classification of Plaintiff’s shoulder condition as a non-severe impairment was supported by sufficient evidence because there is no evidence that Plaintiff’s shoulder condition causes more than a minimal effect on her ability to perform physical basic work-related activities.

Section 416.920(c) requires the step-two evaluation of whether a medically determinable impairment is severe; an impairment is severe when it has more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

LaMarsh · filed 2026-01-14(c)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. This involves a two-step process: 1) determining whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment and 2), if so, determining whether the impairment is severe. To be severe, the medical evidence must establish that the impairment would have more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

At step two, a claimant must show a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment, or combination of impairments, that meets the required duration.

Childress · filed 2026-02-20(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two of the sequential analysis, the claimant bears the burden to show “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment” or combination of impairments that meet specified duration requirements. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, § 416.920(c) requires a claimant to establish a severe impairment, meaning an impairment or combination that significantly limits the ability to do basic work.

Johnson-Dawson · filed 2026-03-09(c)

“A claimant has the burden of establishing that she has a ‘severe impairment,’ which is ‘any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work.’”

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires a five-step disability evaluation, including determining at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment based on limitations in basic work activities.

Waterhouse · filed 2026-03-10(a)(4)

Social Security Administration (SSA) regulations require that Title XVI disability claims be evaluated pursuant to a five-step sequential process. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The first step requires a determination of whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). If so, then the claimant is not disabled and benefits are denied. Id. If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the ALJ proceeds to step two, which requires a determination of whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). In making a determination at step two, the ALJ uses medical evidence to evaluate whether the claimant has an impairment that significantly limits or restricts his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Id. If the ALJ concludes there is no “severe” impairment, the claim is denied. Id.

At step two, a claimant must show an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Estrada · filed 2026-03-12(c)

“A claimant has the burden of establishing that she has a ‘severe impairment,’ which is ‘any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work.’”

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires a claimant to have a severe medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, that satisfies the required duration to establish disability at step two.

French · filed 2026-03-13(a)(4)(ii)

To establish disability under Social Security’s regulations, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he suffers from “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment” or combination of impairments that meet statutory duration requirements. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) and (c) require the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment and direct a finding of no disability when no severe impairment or combination of impairments exists.

Sack · filed 2026-04-06(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At the second step of the sequential analysis, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c). An impairment qualifies as a “severe impairment” only if it is “expected to result in death [or has] lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.909, 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... If the ALJ determines that the claimant does not have a severe impairment, or combination of impairments, the regulations direct the ALJ to find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... A thorough review makes clear that, even when extending appropriate deference to the ALJ’s decision, the denial of relief at step two was in error.

At step two, § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments and to proceed to the next step when at least one severe impairment is found.

Wade · filed 2026-04-21(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must determine if the claimant has a medically severe impairment or a combination of impairments. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 416.921. An ALJ may find impairments or combinations of impairments to be non-severe “if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.” ... Nevertheless, where, as here, the ALJ finds at step two that a claimant has a severe impairment, she proceeds to the next step in the sequential analysis. ... Consequently, an ALJ’s step two error may be harmless if the ALJ considered and properly accounted for the symptoms from the non-severe impairment at later steps. ... Therefore, given that the ALJ resolved step two in Mr. W.’s favor by finding other severe impairments and considered all of Mr. W.’s medically determinable impairments in formulating the RFC, the Court does not find harmful error.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) and (c) require the Commissioner to determine at Step Two whether a claimant has a medically determinable severe impairment; failing to list an impairment is harmless when the ALJ considers its effects in the later analysis.

Jones v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-29(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At Step Two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ is required to consider whether a claimant has met the burden of demonstrating that his or her impairments are “medically determinable” and whether such impairments are severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146-47 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). ... Thus, even if the ALJ technically erred in not explicitly including chronic pain syndrome in Step Two, given the ALJ’s extensive inclusion and discussion of Plaintiff’s pain in his subsequent analysis, the ALJ’s failure to include them at Step Two was, at most, a harmless error.

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it clears the threshold of medical significance, and that finding alone does not require a corresponding limitation in the later RFC determination.

Rocco L. Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-03-20(c)

The inquiries serve separate functions: a finding of severity in step two establishes only that an impairment clears the threshold of medical significance—it does not mandate functional consequences in a subsequent RFC determination.

Section 416.920(c) requires a claimant to show an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities to proceed past step two.

Gatlin v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-20(c)

Overall, the medical record tends to depict non-severe impairments rather than impairments that significantly limits the plaintiff’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Section 416.920(c) requires an impairment that significantly limits a claimant’s ability to work to be treated as severe at step two.

Sawyer v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-04(c)

Substantial medical evidence establishes that Ms. Sawyer’s neuropathy is a “severe” impairment with the meaning of the regulations.

Section 416.920(d) requires a finding of disability without considering age, education, or work experience when the claimant's impairment meets the duration requirement and meets or equals a listed impairment.

Washington v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-09-21(d)

If both requirements are met, then the plaintiff is considered disabled and entitled to benefits. See id. at *3; 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.”).

Section 416.920(d) requires a claimant who meets a listed impairment and the applicable duration requirement to be found disabled without considering age, education, or work experience.

Richard FANNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1987-09-11(d)

If Fanning suffers from the impairment listed in section 12.05(C), and the impairment meets the 12 month duration requirement specified by statute, see 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A) (1982), he must be found disabled without consideration of his age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); ... see also Bowen v. Yuckert, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2294 n. 5, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987) (Secretary has statutory authority to relieve claimant with listed impairment of burden of proving inability to perform prior work).

Section 416.920(d) requires a finding of disability when a claimant has an impairment that meets the duration requirement and meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1.

Holladay v. Otis Bowen, as Secretary of United States Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1988-07-08(d)

The third of these questions derives from 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d), which provides: ... If you have an impairments) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in Appendix 1 [to 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P] or is equal to a listed impairments), we will find you disabled. ... As the regulation’s language indicates, one who has a “listed” impairment for the required duration is automatically found disabled.

Section 416.920(d) requires a claimant to meet the duration requirement and have an impairment listed in Appendix 1 or equal to a listed impairment for a finding of disability at step three, without considering age, education, or work experience.

Guy A. CORNETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1988-08-25(d)

The Social Security Administration Regulations (the Regulations) set forth a five-step process for the evaluation of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The instant case involves the third step in the process which is codified in section 416.920(d). ... If you have an impairments) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in Appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairments), we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.

Section 416.920's five-step sequential evaluation, including its severity requirement, applies to adult SSI claimants and not to child claimants.

Burnside ex rel. Burnside v. Bowen · filed 1988-05-24

First, Stone’s five-step evaluation procedure applies only to adult claimants, who must comply with regulations set out in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, not to child claimants, whose disabilities are evaluated according to the procedure set out in 20 C.F. R. § 416.923. Under § 416.923, a child claimant need not establish the “severity” of his or her impairment in any way other than showing its comparative equivalence to an impairment listed in the appendix.

Subsection (d) treats an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment as presumptively disabling because listings-level impairments are severe enough to preclude substantial gainful activity.

Lewis v. Barnhart · filed 2006-04-04(d)

Impairments in “the Listings” are so severe that they preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d) (2005); Soc. Sec. R. 88-3c (1988), 1988 WL 236022, at *3. A person whose impairment meets or equals an impairment in the Listing is presumptively disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d) (2005); See Soc. Sec. R. 88-3c (1988), 1988 WL 236022, at *7.

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-14(d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s impairments to see if they meet or medically equal those in the Listings. See §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999).

Section 416.920(d) makes a claimant eligible for disability benefits when an impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment, with the claimant bearing the burden of proving that requirement.

Whalen v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-30(d)

Under the Social Security regulations, a claimant is eligible for disability benefits if she has an impairment or combination of impairments which meet or equal an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. I. A claimant seeking disability benefits bears the burden of proving that her condition meets or equals a listed impairment.

Section 416.920(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit basic work activities to be severe, and § 416.920(d) requires the ALJ to determine whether a severe impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Olsen v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-07(c), (d)

By definition, a severe impairment is one that significantly limits an individual’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... The ALJ must consider a claimant’s limitations on the ability to work when assessing the severity of an impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 416.921 (limitations from an impairment determine whether it is severe). ... If the ALJ finds a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments to be severe, then the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 416.925, 416.926).

Section 416.920(d) treats an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment as conclusively disabling, without considering age, education, or work experience; the ALJ must adequately explain a contrary step-three finding when the evidence presents a colorable match.

Ortiz v. Berryhill · filed 2020-12-28(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).

At the listings step, whether impairments meet or equal a listed impairment is one element of the disability evaluation; meeting or equaling a listing is sufficient for disability but not required.

Moss v. Saul · filed 2021-01-28(a)(4)(iii)

Whether or not a claimant’s impairment(s) meets or equals a listed impairment is one element the evaluation process to determine whether a claimant will be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). A claimant meeting or equaling a listed impairment is sufficient to find that the claimant is disabled, but not necessary. /d.

Section 416.920(d) conclusively presumes disability when a claimant’s impairment meets a listed impairment or is medically equivalent to one.

Partridge v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-07-16(d)

If a claimant meets a listed impairment or otherwise establishes an equivalence, the regulations conclusively presume a disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant whose impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment is disabled without consideration of age, education, or work experience.

Manzi v. Saul · filed 2021-04-09(d)

Social Security regulations provide that a claimant is disabled if he or she meets or medically equals a listed impairment. ... The ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff does not meet or medically equal the criteria for Listings 1.02, 1.04, 11.18A or 11.18B is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 416.920(d) presumes disability when a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment that has lasted at least twelve months.

Xiong v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-05-26(d)

20 CFR § 416.920(d) provides that a person will be presumed disabled if he or she a) meets or equals an impairment listed in 20 CFR § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 and b) has had such an impairment for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.

At the fifth step of disability evaluation, the Secretary bears the burden of showing both that other work exists and that the claimant can perform it.

Hayes v. Bowen · filed 1988-12-19(f)

The fifth step of the evaluation procedure requires the Secretary to determine whether the claimant is capable of performing any other work by considering the claimant’s “residual functional capacity and [her] age, education, and past work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). ... The Court holds that the rule in this jurisdiction is that the burden of proof shifts to the Secretary at step five not only to establish the existence of jobs in the national economy, but also to establish that the claimant in fact can perform the available jobs.

Section 416.920(c) was promulgated through the APA's required notice-and-comment procedures, so the court rejected the procedural challenge to it.

Bailey v. Sullivan · filed 1989-09-06(c)

The regulations were published pursuant to the notice and comment procedure. See 43 Fed.Reg. 9284, 55349 (1978); 44 Fed.Reg. 38879 (1979); 45 Fed.Reg. 55566 (1980). The APA requires no more, and we affirm the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ APA challenge to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.-1521, 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(f) provides that the medical-vocational guidelines apply only after finding that a claimant is incapable of performing past relevant work.

Roosevelt HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1989-10-31(f)

The AU correctly did not apply the medical-vocational guidelines as they are to be applied only when it is found that the claimant is incapable of performing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f).

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to be evaluated through five steps: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Wall v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-03

The five-step framework the Social Security Administration uses to determine whether these conditions are met proceeds as follows. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. Step one requires the agency to determine whether a claimant is “presently engaged in substantial gainful activity.” Allen, 357 F.3d at 1142. If not, the agency proceeds to consider, at step two, whether a claimant has “a medically severe impairment or impairments.” Id. An impairment is severe under the applicable regulations if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. At step three, the ALJ considers whether a claimant’s medically severe impairments are equivalent to a condition “listed in the appendix of the relevant disability regulation.” Allen, 357 F.3d at 1142. If a claimant’s impairments are not equivalent to a listed impairment, the ALJ must consider, at step four, whether a claimant’s impairments prevent her from performing her past relevant work. See id. Even if a claimant is so impaired, the agency considers, at step five, whether she possesses the sufficient residual functional capability to perform other work in the national economy. See id.

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to decide disability claims through a five-step sequence, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner bearing it at step five.

Ortiz v. Astrue · filed 2012-06-21(a)(4)

Social Security regulations establish a five-step analysis to determine whether a claimant is eligible for such benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4); see also Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir.1999). At the first step, the Commissioner must consider whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, which is work involving “significant physical or mental activities ... [done] for pay or profit.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(i), 416.972(a)-(b). A finding of such activity is a threshold disqualification for benefits. If no such activity is found, the Commissioner next considers whether the claimant has a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment,” relevantly defined as an impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities and is expected to last at least twelve months. See id. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 416.909. If the claimant is so impaired, the third step requires the Commissioner to determine, based on the medical evidence, whether the step-two impairment meets or equals any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (“Appendix 1”). If so, the claimant is found to be disabled. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... If the Commissioner finds that the claimant, given her RFC, is unable to perform her previous work or has no previous work, the fifth and final step requires the Commissioner to determine whether there is other work in the national economy that the claimant is able to perform. See id. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). The Commissioner considers the claimant’s limitations as well as vocational factors such as education, age, and work experience. Id. Ordinarily, this determination may be made by resorting to medical vocational guidelines, commonly called “the grids.” See Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 601, 604 (2d Cir.1986); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. If, however, the grids do not adequately reflect the claimant’s condition because the claimant’s nonexertional impairments further restrict her possible work beyond the range reflected in the grids, the Commissioner must consider vocational expert testimony or similar evidence to determine whether jobs exist in the national economy for a person with the claimant’s individual limitations. See Bapp, 802 F.2d at 605-06. The claimant is deemed disabled only if she “cannot make an adjustment to other work,” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v), which “requires more than mere inability to work without pain.” Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545, 1552 (2d Cir.1983). For each of the first four steps, the claimant bears the burden of proof. Petrie v. Astrue, 412 Fed.Appx. 401, 404 (2d Cir.2011) (citing Rosa, 168 F.3d at 77). If, however, the analysis reaches step five, “the Commissioner then has the burden of proving that the claimant still retains [the RFC] to perform alternative substantial gainful work” available in the national economy. Rosa, 168 F.3d at 77 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

Section 416.920 requires the Commissioner to determine SSI disability claims through a five-step sequential evaluation addressing substantial gainful activity, impairment severity and duration, listed impairments, residual functional capacity and past work, and other work.

Cirelli v. Astrue · filed 2010-11-18

Under the Social Security Regulations, a claim of disability is determined under a sequential five-step analysis. Craft, 539 F.3d at 673-74 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(DIB); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(SSI)). First, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity. Id. If the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled. Id. Second, the ALJ must evaluate whether the claimant’s impairment is severe, medically determinable, and meets a durational requirement. Id. Third, the ALJ compares the claimant’s impairment to a list of impairments that are considered conclusively disabling; if the impairment meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments, then the claimant is considered disabled. Id. Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ assesses a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and ability to engage in past relevant work. Id. If a claimant can engage in past relevant work, he is not disabled. Id. Fifth, if the claimant is unable to engage in past relevant work, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC, as well as his age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can engage in other work. Id. If the claimant can engage in other work, he is not disabled. Id. The claimant bears the burden of proving steps one through four, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove step five. Briscoe, 425 F.3d at 352.

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of proving that the claimant can perform other jobs existing in substantial numbers in the economy.

Palomares v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-13(f)

At step five of the disability evaluation process, the burden of proving that the claimant can perform other jobs *923that exist in substantial numbers in the economy shifts to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f).

Section 416.920(g) requires the Commissioner, at the final step, to assess the claimant’s qualifications and determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Brouillette v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-28(g)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled as defined under the Social Security Act.2 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 404.1520. ... The final step of the inquiry is, in turn, divided into two parts. First, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s job qualifications by considering his or her physical ability, age, education, and work experience. Second, the Commissioner must determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that a person having the claimant’s qualifications could perform. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(g), 404.1520(g); Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460, 103 S.Ct. 1952, 76 L.Ed.2d 66 (1983).

At step five, the Commissioner has a limited burden to produce evidence that other work exists in significant numbers, while the claimant retains the ultimate burden of persuasion.

Rivera v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-16(A)(4)(v)

Plaintiff does not explain, why the Magistrate Judge was wrong in relying on 68 Fed. Reg. 51153-01 in reaching her decision. Moreover, while the Tenth Circuit has not addressed the issue, other circuits have explicitly stated that the Commissioner’s burden at step five is a limited one. See Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 306 (2d Cir. 2009) (“We agree in any event with the Commissioner that new regulations abrogate the Curry v. Apfel standard of review and clarify that there is only a limited burden shift to the Commissioner at step five.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c)(2)); see also Bellew v. Acting Com’r of Soc. Sec., 605 Fed.Appx. 917, 930 (11th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (“The claimant bears the burden of proving that he is disabled and, thus, is responsible for producing evidence to support his claim :.. Nonetheless, the Commissioner has a limited burden at step five to show the existence of a significant number of jobs that the claimant can perform.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(A)(4)(v)). The Court therefore agrees, with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the ALJ’s statement of the burden of proof at step five was not incorrect.

At Step 5 of the sequential evaluation, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that a claimant can perform work other than her past relevant work.

MITCHELL v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-06-01(g)

The ALJ reached Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than her past relevant work.

At Step 5 of the sequential evaluation, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that a claimant can perform work other than her past relevant work.

HOOD v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-10-25(g)

The ALJ reached Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); Goodermote, 690 F.2d at 7.

Section 416.920 requires an SSI claimant to prove disability through a five-step sequential evaluation; the claimant bears the initial burden through steps one to four, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five.

(SS) Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-11(a), (a)(4)

“The claimant carries the initial burden of proving a disability in steps one through four of the analysis.” Burch, 400 F.3d at 679 (citing Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 1989)). “However, if a claimant establishes an inability to continue her past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner in step five to show that the claimant can perform other substantial gainful work.” Id. (citing Swenson, 876 F.2d at 687).

Section 416.920 establishes a five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims: the claimant bears the burden at steps one through four, while the Commissioner bears the step-five burden of showing that the claimant can perform other work in significant numbers, although the claimant retains the ultimate burden of proving disability.

Hasson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-19

In keeping with this function, the Commissioner has established a five- step sequential evaluation for adjudicating disability claims, which is set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The claimant has the burden at the first four steps. The Commissioner has the burden at the fifth step of demonstrating that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy; but the burden of proving disability is always on the claimant.

At step five under § 416.920(a)(4)(v), the Commissioner must show that work exists in significant numbers given the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Cooper v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2014-04-16(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that work exists in significant numbers in the national economy given a claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Section 416.920 establishes a five-step disability evaluation: the claimant bears the burden through the first four steps, while the Commissioner bears the burden at step five to show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, although the claimant retains the ultimate burden of proving disability.

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-26

In keeping with this function, the Commissioner has established a five- step sequential evaluation for adjudicating disability claims, which is set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The claimant has the burden at the first four steps. The Commissioner has the burden at the fifth step of demonstrating that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy; but the burden of proving disability is always on the claimant.

Section 416.920 establishes a sequential evaluation process for SSI disability claims, under which a claimant is disabled at step five only if unable to adjust to other work in the national economy.

Blackmon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-22(a), (g)

The Social Security Administration, in order to regularize the adjudicative process, promulgated the detailed regulations currently in effect. These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). ... At step five, the Commissioner must consider the assessment of the RFC combined with the claimant’s age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can make an adjustment to other work. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1239 (11th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant can make an adjustment to other work, a finding of not disabled is warranted. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1239. Conversely, if the claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work, a finding of disabled is warranted. Id. ... Therefore, given the fact that the ALJ identified work available in significant numbers in the national economy that the Plaintiff can perform, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding of not disabled.

Section 416.920 requires a sequential evaluation of disability: substantial gainful activity, severity and listed impairments, past relevant work, and then residual functional capacity for other work.

Trentini v. Sullivan · filed 1989-12-28(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

Our review of the AU’s decision follows the sequential analysis set forth in the Social Security Regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. This analysis establishes a framework for determining whether an individual is disabled according to the regulations. The first inquiry is whether the plaintiff is performing any substantial gainful activity. If so, the plaintiff is not disabled and the inquiry is concluded. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). If not, the next step scrutinizes whether an individual has a severe impairment.

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to be evaluated under a five-step sequential process, and a claimant may establish a prima facie case when the evidence shows severe impairments and inability to perform prior work, shifting the burden to the agency to show capacity for other available work.

Walker v. DHRS · filed 1989-12-29

Appellant has made a sufficient showing of disability under the sequential test. His uncontradicted evidence showed that he was not currently employed, that his impairments were "severe" within the meaning of the Walker I definition,[2] and although none of appellant's impairments was of the degree necessary for a finding of disability under the CFR tables,[3] appellant's doctor indicated that appellant could no longer do the tasks necessary to perform his previous occupation. Appellant having thus established a prima facie case of entitlement, the burden shifted to The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to show that appellant was either capable of performing his former occupation or alternate work available in the national economy.

Section 416.920 establishes a sequential process for deciding disability: assess substantial gainful activity, severity and listed impairments, then past relevant work and the capacity for other work.

Bainey v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1990-01-11(b), (c), (e)

Our review of the' AU’s decision follows the sequential analysis set forth in the Social Security Regulations. See C.F.R. § 416.920. This analysis establishes a framework for determining whether an individual is disabled according to the regulations. The first inquiry is whether the plaintiff is performing any substantial gainful activity. 'If so, the plaintiff is not disabled and the inquiry is concluded. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). If not, the next step scrutinizes whether an individual has a severe impairment.

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential five-step process; at step four, a claimant who can perform past relevant work is not disabled.

Travis v. Barnhart · filed 2007-02-28(a), (f)

To determine disability, the ALJ followed the five-step process, considering whether: (1) Travis was employed; (2) she was severely impaired; (3) her impairment was, or was comparable to, a listed impairment; (4) she could perform past relevant work; and if not, (5) whether Travis could perform any other kind of work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a); Hacker, 459 F.3d at 936, quoting Cox v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 606, 608 n.1 (8th Cir. 2003). ... If the ALJ "cannot make a determination or decision at the first three steps of the sequential evaluation process, [it] will compare [the] residual functional capacity assessment . . . with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). If the claimant can still perform that work, the claimant is not disabled. Id.

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process addressing substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, past work, and other work.

Khounesavatdy v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-10

The regulations provide that the ALJ must make specific sequential determinations in the process of evaluating a disability: 1) whether the applicant engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged date of the onset of the impairment, 2) whether solely on the basis of the medical evidence the claimed impairment is severe, that is, of a magnitude sufficient to limit significantly the individual’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities; 3) whether solely on the basis of medical evidence the impairment equals or exceeds in severity certain impairments described in Appendix I of the regulations; 4) whether the applicant has sufficient residual functional capacity, defined as what an individual can still do despite limitations, to perform the applicant’s past work; and 5) whether on the basis of the applicant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, the applicant can perform any other gainful and substantial work within the economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920.

Section 416.920 requires disability determinations to follow a five-step sequential evaluation, with a negative finding generally ending the inquiry and the burden shifting to the agency at step five.

Paquette v. Rhode Island Dept. of Human · filed 2011-10-18

To determine whether an applicant qualifies as "disabled" for the purposes of MA eligibility, a Hearing Officer engages in a five-step sequential inquiry, which follows the five-step federal process enunciated in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. ... The Hearing Officer asks: ... 1. Is the claimant engaged in substantial activity? 2. If not, is the impairment severe? 3. If severe, does it meet or equal an impairment listed in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) regulations? 4. If it does not meet or equal SSI regulations, does the impairment prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work? 5. Considering age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity, does the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing other work in the national economy? ... Because of the sequential nature of this five-pronged analysis, a negative determination at any one of the steps (except for step three) forecloses a finding of "disabled."

Section 416.920 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability, including a step-two finding that an impairment is severe only when it significantly limits basic work activities.

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

At step two of the five-step process, the ALJ must assess whether the claimant has a severe mental or physical impairment that has or is expected to last twelve months or will result in death. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(ii); 416.909, 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(ii). “An impairment is not severe if it amounts only to a slight abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... Considering that Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing his injuries were severe and the substantial evidence relied upon by the ALJ, this Court finds that there was sufficient basis for the ALJ’s determination.

Section 416.920(a) requires the ALJ to follow a sequential disability-evaluation process, including deciding at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment that meets the duration requirement.

Peter v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-04(a)

At Step Two of the disability analysis, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that is “severe” and meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (iv), and (v) requires sequential consideration of the severity of impairments, ability to perform past relevant work, and ability to adjust to other available work, including the claimant’s established limitations.

Hicks v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-19(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, Step Two requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment or a combination of impairments that is severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) (mandating a finding of non-disability when claimant’s impairments are not severe); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) (same). ... At Step Four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity (or “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, 186 F.3d at 428. ... If the claimant is unable to return to his or her past relevant work, Step Five requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant’s impairments preclude him or her from adjusting to any other available work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v) & (g) (mandating a finding of non-disability when the claimant can adjust to other work and a finding of disability when the claimant cannot do so); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v) & (g) (same); Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428.

Section 416.920(a)(4) establishes a five-step disability inquiry; when a claimant meets or equals a listing at step three, the claimant is found disabled and the evaluation does not proceed to considering residual functional capacity at a later step.

Jackson v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-01(a)(4)

However, she does not claim to have met a mental health listing at step three. Indeed, had the ALJ assigned two marked ratings at step three, the ALJ would have found Plaintiff presumptively disabled, and thus would not have proceeded to consider Plaintiff’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). The Court will not reweigh evidence regarding Plaintiff’s ratings, and the ALJ did not err in her RFC analysis. The ALJ’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 416.920 provides a five-step adult disability test under which a claimant who does not qualify under the listings may still establish disability through individualized assessment of past or other work.

Sullivan v. Zebley · filed 1990-02-20(a), (e), and (f)

For adults, these shortcomings of the listings are remedied at the final, vocational steps of the Secretary’s test. A *535claimant who does not qualify for benefits under the listings, for any of the reasons described above, still has the opportunity to show that his impairment in fact prevents him from working. 20 CFR §§416.920(e) and (f) (1989); Yuckert, 482 U. S., at 141 (if an adult claimant’s “impairment is not one that is conclusively presumed to be disabling, the evaluation proceeds” to the fourth and fifth steps); Campbell, 461 U. S., at 460 (“If a claimant suffers from a less severe impairment” than the listed impairments, “the Secretary must determine whether the claimant retains the ability to perform either his former work or some less demanding employment”).

Sections 416.920(e) and (f) provide later evaluation steps for workers to show that their impairments prevent them from working even when they do not meet the specific criteria for a listed disability.

Bennett v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Gray Panthers Advocacy Committee, Older Womens League, Amici Curiae · filed 1990-11-06(e) and (f)

There are further steps in the evaluation process that prevent workers from falling through the cracks. Under steps four and five, which only apply to workers, a claimant has the opportunity to demonstrate that his afflictions do prevent him from working. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e) and (f). However, this alternate ground is not available to children and widows. Unlike workers, they do not have the opportunity to argue that they are truly disabled even though they do not meet the specific criteria for at least one listed disability.

The regulation requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential seven-step process, including whether the claimant can perform past or other work.

Douglas GARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1984-10-05

Under these statutes, and the regulations promulgated pursuant to these statutes, a claim of disability must be considered pursuant to the following seven-step analysis: ... 7. Can the claimant, despite his impairments), considering his residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience, do other work — i.e., any other substantial gainful activity which exists in the national economy? If yes, the claimant is not disabled. If no, the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a), 404.1520(f)(1); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.905(a), 416.920(f)(1).

The regulation requires a claimant to have a severe impairment that significantly limits physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, interpreted in light of the 1968 standard.

Barbara DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1984-12-10(c)

Sections 404.-1520(c) and 416.920(c) must be read with § 416.921(a), which sets out the definition of a "non-severe impairment” as one that does not "significantly limit [a person’s] physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities.”

The duration requirement applies to the claimant’s underlying impairment, not to each individual episode of deterioration.

Marlane C. Pagan v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Health and Human Services · filed 1989-01-17(d)

It is the “impairment,” not the “episodes,” that must meet the 12-month requirement. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A); see also 20 C.F. R. § 416.920(d) (claimant prevails if her “impairment” is a listed one and “meets the duration requirement”).

The regulation requires a claimant to show a medically severe impairment that significantly limits basic work abilities before vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience are considered.

Bowen v. Yuckert · filed 1987-06-08(c)

Particularly in light of those amendments and the legislative history, we conclude that the regulation is valid on its face.

At step two, § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires evaluating whether a claimant’s physical or mental impairments, alone or in combination, significantly limit basic work activities.

Grzegorek v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-10(a)(4)(ii)

Such error is present here because the ALJ erred in dismissing Grzegorek’s conditions at the second step of the five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a claimant is “disabled” and eligible for benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920; see also Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1048 (9th Cir. 2017). At the second step, the ALJ evaluates whether the claimant’s physical or mental impairments, or a combination of those impairments, significantly limit basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c). “If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the disability claim is denied.” Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987).