20 C.F.R. § 416.920

Section 416.920(c) applies a step-two severity standard: an impairment is severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Virden v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-20(c)

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) (2007). ... The medical evidence simply fails to show her obesity substantially impacted her ability to work. And she has not provided any medical evidence to support an allegation her obesity amounted to a “severe” impairment. Accordingly, I find the ALJ could rightly determine Plaintiff’s obesity was not a severe impairment.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as non-severe when it causes no more than a minimal limitation on the ability to perform basic work activities.

Fox v. Saul · filed 2020-03-25(c)

“An impairment is non-severe when medial evidence establishes only a slight abnormality, or a combination of slight abnormalities that would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities.” Burkart v. Berryhill, No. 4:17-00932-CV-RK, 2019 WL 852123, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 22, 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c)). The Court finds Plaintiff’s alleged impairments of carpal tunnel syndrome, degenerative joint disease of the knees, and depression/anxiety are either controlled with medication, require little ongoing management, or show only mild limitations. Therefore, they do not cause more than a minimal limitation in Plaintiff’s ability to function, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that these impairments are non-severe.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as non-severe when it does not significantly limit basic work activities or does not last, or is not expected to last, continuously for at least 12 months.

FRANCIS v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-04-14(c)

An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities and/or does not last or is not expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 20 C.F.R. §§416.920(c), 416.921(a), 416.909, 42 U.S.C. §423(d). ... Therefore, I find any purported error was harmless such that a remand on this basis is not warranted.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as non-severe when it does not significantly limit basic work activities or does not meet the required 12-month duration.

RAINEY v. SAUL · filed 2020-10-08(c)

To be clear, an impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities and/or does not last or is not expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(c), §416.921(a); §416.909, 42 U.S.C. §423(d).

Section 416.920(c) requires the Commissioner at step two to determine whether a claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Pittman v. Saul · filed 2020-11-04(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... The ALJ’s failure to address Plaintiff’s diagnosis of depression and determine if it was a severe impairment was an error.

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

Lizcano v. Berryhill · filed 2020-12-04(c)

An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental capacity to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c); see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987). ... Here, the ALJ reasonably determined that plaintiff’s OCD and ADHD did not significantly limit his physical or mental capacity to perform basic work activities.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Volbert v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-19(c)

At Step Two of the sequential analysis, an ALJ must determine a claimant’s “severe” impairments. A severe impairment is one “which significantly limits” an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(c) requires a claimant at step two to establish that an impairment is severe.

(SS) Norma A. Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-22(c)

Plaintiff must next establish her impairment was severe. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 153 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... However, no physician identified any functional limitations resulting from her back impairment, and Plaintiff does not identify any objective evidence that her back pain affected her ability to perform basic work activities.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Haralson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-08(c)

Plaintiff correctly notes that her doctors listed seizures under “assessments,” but 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); Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1992); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) (2007).

Section 416.920(c) uses significant limitation of basic work abilities as the threshold for a severe impairment.

Bittle v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-06(c)

Plaintiff correctly notes 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); Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1992); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) (2007). ... Accordingly, I find the ALJ could rightly determine it was not a severe impairment.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, and the court applied that standard to uphold the finding that the claimant’s complex regional pain syndrome was not severe.

Davis v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-10(c)

Likewise, Dr. Norton’s opinions provide substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion that complex regional pain syndrome was not a “severe” impairment. 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); Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1992); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) (2007). It has “more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.” Hudson v. Bowen, 870 F.2d at 1396; accord, Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007); Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007). ... The medical evidence simply fails to support a claim that Plaintiff has “severe” complex regional pain syndrome. Accordingly, I find the ALJ could rightly determine “. . . this is not a ‘severe’ impairment.”

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Al Ramdan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-09(c)

The ALJ supported her conclusion that Plaintiff’s mental impairments were non-severe with substantial evidence, noting that the evidence indicates that Plaintiff’s post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), anxiety, and depression do not impose more than mild limitations in Plaintiff’s ability to (1) understand, remember, or apply information, (2) interact with others, (3) concentrate, persist, or maintain pace, and (4) adapt or manage herself. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) (a severe impairment is one that “significantly limits [one’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities”).

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; a diagnosis alone does not establish severity.

Wallies v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-20(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); Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1992); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) (2007). ... I recognize Plaintiff has been diagnosed with depression. But a diagnosis of a mental impairment does not automatically establish it as a “severe” impairment. See Gowell v. Apfel, 242 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 2001). And I find no evidence to reverse the ALJ on this point.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, regardless of age, education, or work experience.

Lindsey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-10(c)

An impairment or combination of impairments is severe if it/they “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[,]” irrespective of age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(c) asks whether an impairment causes more than minimal limitations on a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities when determining if it is severe.

Bordas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-10(c)

Thus, the first question to be answered here is whether, given the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff does suffer from fibromyalgia, his determination that it did not “cause more than minimal limitations on the claimant’s ability to perform basis work activities” - which is the proper legal standard, see, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) - is supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, an impairment is nonsevere only if it causes no significant limitation in basic work activities, meaning it is merely a slight abnormality with a minimal effect on the ability to work.

Slaughter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-12(c)

Under the Commissioner’s five-step process for evaluating disability claims, an individual’s impairment is not severe if it does not “significantly limit” the individual’s “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1522, 416.920(c). Basic work activities include “[p]hysical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522(b)(1). A medically-determinable impairment is not severe “only if it is a slight abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work.” ... Plaintiff's difficulties with his prosthesis and the accompanying pain and discomfort due to poor fit and phantom limb pain are substantial evidence that plaintiff's below knee amputation is a severe impairment.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Dawn Owens v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-22(c)

A claimant will not be declared disabled unless the claimant’s impairment is severe. Id. at 184; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). A severe impairment “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities . . . .” § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Cain v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-16(c)

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) (2007). It has “more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.” ... While I understand the significance of the argument, I find it to be without merit. ... I, therefore, find the ALJ’s opinion to be supported by substantial evidence on this point.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Wilson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-16(c)

Importantly, “nowhere does the record indicate [Wilson] is suffering from depression [or any other mental-health issue] to the extent he cannot work.” Combs, 243 F. App’x at 205; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) (A severe impairment “significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”)

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Sanchez v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-23(c)

The ALJ did not include IBS in the list of plaintiff’s severe, medically determinable impairments (Tr. at 12), and plaintiff cites no medical evidence demonstrating that it significantly limits her ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.921 (“[A] physical or mental impairment must be established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source. We will not use your statement of symptoms, a diagnosis, or a medical opinion to establish the existence of an impairment(s).”).

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

Verduzco v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(c)

The regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c), provide that an impairment is severe if it significantly limits one’s ability to perform basic work activities. An impairment is considered non-severe if it does not significantly limit your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. The ability to perform basic work activities is defined as “the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522(b). Activities include “physical functions such as walking, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying or handling.” Id.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Garza v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-06(c)

In addition, a severe impairment is one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

At step two, § 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Mikula v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-18(c)

A determination that carpal tunnel syndrome is a severe impairment means it significantly limited Plaintiff’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Section 416.920(c) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether a claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; a slight abnormality with no more than a minimal effect on ability to work may be found non-severe.

(SS) Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-25(c)

At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation, the ALJ is required to determine whether a plaintiff has a “severe” medical impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). An impairment, or combination of impairments, can be found 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.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Watts v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-08(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); Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1992); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) (2007).

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Utz v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-16(c)

A medically determinable impairment is “severe” when it “significantly limits [an individual’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... Because the ALJ’s findings as to each of these alleged impairments were supported by substantial evidence in the medical record and Plaintiff does not lobby a specific challenge to that reasoning, the Court upholds the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s various physical symptoms were either non-severe or did not qualify as medically determinable impairments.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Weatherly v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-02(c)

A “severe” impairment is one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Mayers v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-24(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); Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1992); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) (2007). It has “more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.” Hudson v. Bowen, 870 F.2d at 1396; accord, Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007); Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007). ... Here the ALJ could correctly determine her headaches amounted to a non-severe impairment. While Plaintiff makes fair arguments, I find the ALJ’s step-two decision to be supported by substantial evidence.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only if it significantly inhibits a claimant’s physical or mental abilities to engage in basic work activities.

Miller, II v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-25(c)

Accordingly, an impairment is deemed to be severe only if it significantly inhibits a claimant’s physical or mental abilities to engage in basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 416.921(a); see also Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237.

Section 416.920(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities to qualify as severe.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-27(c)

The ALJ then analyzes in the second step whether the applicant has a medically determinable impairment, or a combination of impairments, that meets the definition of “severe.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is “severe” if it significantly limits the person’s ability to perform basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). But the impairment is not severe if the medical information establishes only a “slight abnormality that minimally affects work ability regardless of age, education, and experience.” Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860, 862 (6th Cir. 1988).

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities.

Ortiz v. O'Malley · filed 2025-05-14(c)

In contrast to MDIs, “severity” is measured based on whether the MDI “significantly limits” the claimant’s “ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 404.1520(c); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.921; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *4.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Brown v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-01(c)

An impairment is severe if it significantly limits the ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(a)(ii) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment, and § 416.920(c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-13(a)(ii), (c)

The second step of the sequential evaluation process requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant’s impairment is “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(ii). A severe impairment “significantly limits [a person’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(c) requires the ALJ at step two to decide whether a medically determinable impairment is severe, meaning it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Flocchini v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-12(c)

If a claimant has a medically determinable impairment (MDI), the ALJ must determine whether the impairment is severe, which is referred to as Step Two. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). An impairment is severe if it “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. “Basic work activities” is defined as “the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs,” such as walking, standing, sitting, remembering simple instructions, and responding appropriately to supervision. 20 C.F.R. 416.922(b).

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

Machia v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-25(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.’” Woodmancy v. Colvin, 577 Fed. Appx. 72, 74 (2d Cir. 2014)(quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c)) (alterations in original). A mere diagnosis of a disease or impairment is insufficient, the evidence must demonstrate that such impairment is severe.

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

LaDonna Smith v. Bisignano · filed 2026-01-08(c)

A “severe” impairment is one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. ... It has “more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.” ... Here, the ALJ properly focused on Plaintiff’s ability to function rather than focusing on her diagnoses. ... After careful consideration of the record, I find substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.

Section 416.920(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant's ability to perform basic work activities to qualify as severe at step two.

Eastman v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-17(c)

Under the regulations, a severe impairment must significantly limit an individual’s capacity to perform basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c), 404.1522(a), 416.922(a); Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007). Record evidence cited by the ALJ did not show significant limitations in Plaintiff’s ability to work related to his cervical spine, right shoulder, and right elbow.

At step two, § 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.

MARTIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-01-29(c)

First, the evidence does not support a finding that Plaintiff’s asthma is a severe condition. Step two is known as the “severity regulation” because it focuses on whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). An impairment is not severe if it does not “significantly limit [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id.

Section 416.920(c) requires determining at step two whether a claimant has a severe impairment, but an explicit sentence is not indispensable when the ALJ's later findings necessarily imply that determination.

Schleif v. Barnhart · filed 2002-03-15(c)

Schleif argues that the ALJ’s decision must be reversed because he failed to explicitly determine whether she has a severe impairment as required by the second step of the framework for establishing a disability. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). She claims that any error of law warrants automatic reversal irrespective of the evidence supporting the factual finding. Schleifs interpretation of the ALJ’s decision regarding this claim is erroneous. Although the decision does not contain a single sentence expressing ALJ Pleuss’ decision that Schleif has a severe impairment, it refers to her impairments as severe. (See, e.g., Admin. R. at 22, Decision at 11 (“Next, I must determine whether the claimant, despite her severe impairment ... ”)). Further, as the district court concluded, the simple fact that the ALJ did make findings with regard to the third, fourth, and fifth steps means that he necessarily decided Schleif has a severe impairment. See Clifford, 227 F.3d at 868 (“A negative answer at any point, other than Step 3, ends the inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled.”) (quotation omitted). Finally, even if the ALJ improperly skipped step two, Schleif could only have benefitted by that error.

At step five, the Commissioner must prove that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Messer v. Saul · filed 2022-06-03(a)(4)(v)

As previously noted, at step five, the burden is on the Commissioner to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant can “perform other work that ‘exists in significant numbers in the national economy,’ considering the claimant’s [RFC], age, education, and work experience.”

Section 416.920(a) determines disability by reference to vocational factors and the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Cornett v. Astrue · filed 2008-01-03(a)

Whether Cornett is capable of performing work which exists in the national economy is determined by reference to vocational factors (such as age, education, and work experience) and his residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a), (g); 416.960(c).

At step five, once the claimant cannot perform past relevant work and the Commissioner shows that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers, the claimant bears the burden of showing inability to perform that work.

Myers v. Barnhart · filed 2002-11-27(f)

Once it is established that a disability claimant is unable to perform past relevant work and the ALJ has demonstrated that the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national and local economy, it becomes the plaintiffs burden to show that she is unable to perform the suggested gainful activity. See Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d at 452-53. In this instance, Myers offered no evidence supported by objective medical data, indicating that she would be unable to perform light work with limitations on a regular and continuing basis; nor, did Myers refute the vocational expert’s assessment that she could perform such work and that the jobs existed in significant numbers in the national and local economy. (T. 51-52). The ALJ, in assessing Myers’ residual functional capacity, properly relied upon the vocational expert’s response to a hypothetical question which was premised upon Myers’ capacity to perform work on a regular and continuing basis, as confirmed by the substantial evidence. See Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d at 146; Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d at 431; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f).

At the fifth step, when an impairment prevents past work, the decision-maker must consider vocational factors and cannot rely on the medical-vocational grids alone when nonexertional impairments may significantly affect residual functional capacity.

Robinson v. Barnhart · filed 2003-01-31(f)

An ALJ must engage in a five-step inquiry to determine whether the claimant is capable of performing “substantial gainful activity,” or is, in fact, disabled: ... 5. If an individual’s impairment precludes performance of [her] past work, then other factors, including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if any work can be performed. ... Despite the plethora of evidence from multiple sources and his own finding that Robinson had mental impairments, the ALJ did not incorporate her mental limitations in his assessment of her RFC. Then, although he had found that the combination of her impairments, including depression, imposed significant limitations on her ability to perform work-related activities, he relied solely on the grid rules to determine her ability to perform gainful activity in the national economy. Under these circumstances, there was not substantial evidence in the record indicating that Robinson suffered only from exertional impairments or that her nonexertional impairments did not significantly affect her RFC. Therefore, the ALJ’s reliance on the medical-vocational guidelines alone was improper.

Section 416.920(g) places the burden on the Commissioner at the final step to determine whether, considering a claimant’s qualifications, jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

BASZTO v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-31(g)

While the claimant has the burden of proof as to the first four steps, the Commissioner has the burden of proof on the fifth and final step. ... 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.

Section 416.920(f) requires the factfinder at step five to determine whether the claimant's impairments prevent the claimant from doing other work in the national economy.

Nkrumah v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-03-24(f)

Finally, Nkrumah argues at step five that the ALJ incorrectly relied on the medical-vocational guidelines. This step provides that a claimant is not disabled unless suffering from an impairment that prevents him or her from doing any other work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f) (explaining that, at step five, the factfinder determines whether the claimant's impairments prevent him or her from working). Thus, it was at this step that the ALJ concluded that Nkrumah was not disabled under the Act. ... On appeal, Nkrumah argues that the ALJ erred in relying on the Guidelines because these Guidelines cannot be relied upon in the presence of non-exertional impairments. We agree with the District Court that this argument lacks merit. The ALJ concluded that Nkrumah did not have any non-exertional impairments. He was found capable of performing light work and this finding was supported by substantial evidence. We share the District Court’s opinion that, at step five, the ALJ properly followed the procedures and supported his determinations with substantial evidence from the record. We find no error.

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's residual functional capacity and vocational factors permit adjustment to jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Young v. Barnhart · filed 2003-10-21(a)(4)(v)

Step five requires the ALJ to determine whether there are jobs in the national economy that accommodate a claimant’s RFC and other vocational factors.

Section 416.920(f) shifts the burden to the Commissioner at step five to show that a claimant who cannot perform past relevant work can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy considering her medically determinable limitations, age, education, and work experience.

DeCarlo v. Barnhart · filed 2004-12-02(f)

Once the evidence established that DeCarlo cannot perform her past relevant work, the burden shifted to the Commissioner to establish other jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform given her medically determinable limitations, age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f).

At step five, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant who cannot perform past work can perform other work existing in the national or regional economy.

Fast, Peggy A. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2005-02-02(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential analysis, an ALJ must determine (taking into account the step four finding that the claimant can no longer perform her past work) whether the person can do any other work that exists in the national or regional economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (4)(v), (e); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v), (e). To this end, the ALJ may use the grids to determine whether other jobs exist in the national or regional economy that a claimant can perform.

Section 416.920(g) shifts the disability-evaluation inquiry to whether a claimant who cannot return to past relevant work can perform other work, considering her residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Ratliff v. Barnhart · filed 2006-12-20(g)

Since Ratliff was found to have no past relevant work, the burden shifted to the ALJ to demonstrate that Ratliff was able to perform alternative work.

At step five, § 416.920(g) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work by considering residual functional capacity together with age, education, and work experience.

Potter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-05-08(g)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairments prevent her from “making an adjustment to any other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). In so doing, the ALJ is to consider the claimant’s “residual functional capacity . . . together with [her] vocational factors ([ ] age, education, and work experience).” Id.

Section 416.920(g) requires step-five consideration of a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can perform other work; mild-to-moderate concentration limits may still permit sedentary work with simple, routine tasks.

Burden v. Astrue · filed 2008-11-25(g)

Under the Social Security Act, the Social Security Administration (the “administration”) has established a five-step, sequential evaluation process for determining whether an individual is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). The steps are followed in order. If at any step it is determined that the claimant is or is not disabled, the evaluation ends without proceeding to the next step. ... At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is able to perform any other work, taking into consideration the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). If the claimant is not able to perform other work and meets the duration requirement, the claimant is disabled. ... Contrary to Burden’s contention that any impairment characterized as “mild to moderate” is in fact severe, a “severe impairment” is one that has more than a minimal impact on a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. The ALJ found that while Burden has “mild to moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace,” she can nevertheless engage in work at the sedentary exertional level that requires only “simple instructions and routine repetitive tasks.” Tr. 28. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the Record and concluded that the ALJ’s finding was supported by substantial evidence. This court agrees. Consequently, Burden’s argument that the ALJ’s use of the grids was improper lacks merit, and the objection is overruled.

Section 416.920 requires the Commissioner, at step five, to establish that a claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past relevant work.

Pardee v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-07

At the fifth step of the sequential evaluation of disability, the Commissioner bears the responsibility of proving that plaintiff is capable of performing other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy in light of plaintiffs residual functional capacity, age, education, and past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 416.960. ... Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that the hypothetical submitted to the vocational expert is supported by substantial evidence. ... Thus, the Court concludes that the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert is supported by the record.

At the fifth step of the disability analysis, the Commissioner must show that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant's residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-10-21(a)(4)(v) and (g)

At the fifth step, the Commissioner is required to show that “other jobs in significant numbers exist in the national economy that [claimant] could perform given [his] RFC and considering relevant vocational factors.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241; 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v) and (g).

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

Henry v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-10(g)

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 decision-maker considers residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether a claimant can adjust to other work; when a non-exertional impairment significantly limits the work range, vocational-expert evidence is required rather than reliance on the Grid alone.

Aregano v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-31(a)(4)(v)

At the final step of the sequential analysis, the Commissioner will determine whether a claimant who cannot do past relevant work can make an adjustment to *321other work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). The hearing officer will consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity (as determined at Step Four), age, education, and work experience. Id. If the claimant can make an adjustment to other work, he is not entitled to disability benefits. Id. If he cannot adjust, the hearing officer will find him disabled. Id. ... In short, when a claimant has a non-exertional impairment that significantly limits the range of work permitted by his exertional limitations, the Social Security Administration may not apply the Grid. ... The Commissioner bears the burden of proof at this step of the disability determination, Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128, and the hearing officer ought to have requested the testimony of a vocational expert to determine whether Aregano was disabled instead of applying the Grids, Rosa, 168 F.3d at 82. This Court remands the issue to the Administration with instructions that a vocational expert be consulted on whether there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that Aregano can perform.

Section 416.920(g) requires the Commissioner, at the fifth step, to consider the claimant's qualifications and determine whether work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Niles v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-29(g)

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 ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform other work considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, with the burden shifting to the ALJ after the claimant shows inability to perform past work.

Bilak v. Colvin · filed 2014-12-15(g)

At the fifth step of a social security disability evaluation, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is able to do any other work considering Plaintiffs RFC, age, education, and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). If the claimant establishes that the impairment prevented her from performing past work, the burden shifts to the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is capable of performing alternative, substantial gainful activity present in the national economy. See id.

At step five, the Commissioner considers a claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work; ability to adjust means the claimant is not disabled.

Crawford v. Colvin · filed 2015-12-07(a)(4)(v)

The Commissioner considers the claimant's RFC along with the claimant's "age, education, and work experience to see if [the claimant] can make an adjustment to other work." 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant is able to make an adjustment, he or she is not disabled under the Social Security Act. Id.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires the Commissioner at step five to determine whether a claimant can adjust to other work in the national economy, and unsupported vocational-expert testimony that conflicts with the DOT does not satisfy that determination.

Stamper v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-30(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience to see if the claimant can make an adjustment to other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work, then he will be found to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(a)(4)(v). ... At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the Commissioner has the burden of establishing that jobs exist in the economy that the claimant is capable of performing. See, e.g., Kemp, 743 F.3d at 633. Here, in attempting to meet that burden, the ALJ relied on testimony that conflicts with the DOT, and the vocational expert offered no explanation for the conflicting testimony. Thus, the burden was not met. See Montgomery v. Chater, 69 F.3d 273, 275-77 (8th Cir.1995) (reversing based on conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT, and explaining that “[t]he [vocational expert’s] task is to determine whether jobs exist for someone with the claimant’s precise disabilities”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the case will be remanded for additional determination of whether jobs exist in the economy that Stamper is capable of performing.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) directs the ALJ at step five to determine whether a claimant can perform other jobs in the national economy given the claimant's limitations.

Myles v. Berryhill · filed 2017-05-16(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ refers to the Guidelines to determine whether a claimant is able to perform other jobs in the national economy in light of his limitations (e.g., his age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity). ... Where the Guidelines do not “completely and accurately represent a claimant’s limitations,” an ALJ must consult the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”).

Section 416.920(g) places the burden on the Commissioner at Step 5 to show that a claimant can perform work other than past relevant work.

FOLSOM v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-06-28(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.

At step five, the regulation requires considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity together with age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work; inability to adjust warrants a finding of disability.

Pierce v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-17(a)(4)(v)

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. § 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.

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant can perform other work considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience; the Commissioner bears a limited burden to show that such work exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Tilley v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-27(g)

The fifth and final step requires the ALJ to determine whether the individual is able to do any other work considering his RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). If he is able to do other work, then a finding of not disabled is made. Although the individual generally continues to bear the burden of proving disability at this step, a limited evidentiary burden shifts to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is responsible for providing evidence that demonstrates that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the individual can do.

Section 416.920(g)(1) requires the Commissioner at step five to show that, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity and vocational factors, the claimant can adjust to other work; otherwise the claimant is disabled.

Cutler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-02(g)(1)

At step five of the sequential evaluation analysis, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that, based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience, he or she can do other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(g), 416.960(c). ... Here, the vocational expert testified that a hypothetical individual of Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity could perform the requirements of representative jobs such as escort vehicle driver (3,000 jobs in Washington and 200,000 in the national economy), and stuffer, toys (1,000 jobs in Washington and 200,000 in the national economy).

At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience, the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers.

Barr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(g)

At step five of the sequential evaluation analysis, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that, based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience, he or she can do other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(g), 416.960(c). ... If the claimant can perform jobs which exist in significant numbers either in the region where the claimant lives or in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(a), 1382c(a)(3)(b). The burden of establishing that there exists other work in “significant numbers” lies with the Commissioner. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099.

At step five, § 416.920(g) requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work, considering vocational factors, and to find the claimant disabled if the claimant cannot make that adjustment.

Barr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(g)

At step five, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). In making this determination, the Commissioner must also consider vocational factors such as the claimant’s age, education and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant is capable of adjusting to other work, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1). If the claimant is not capable of adjusting to other work, analysis concludes with a finding that the claimant is disabled and is therefore entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1).

At step five, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires evaluating whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy in light of the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors; the sequential evaluation ends in disability when the claimant cannot adjust to other work.

Phipps v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-03-23(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). ... The ALJ erred in failing to elicit reliable vocational expert testimony in order to evaluate the erosion of the occupational base to determine the guidance value of Grid Rule 201.12.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires the step-five decisionmaker to determine whether a claimant can adjust to other work, and the court held that reliable vocational evidence was required to evaluate that issue when the claimant’s residual functional capacity fell between exertional categories.

Phipps v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-03-23(a)(4)(v)

At step five, “the ALJ ... examines whether the claimant has the [RFC] ... to perform any other substantial gainful activity in the national economy.” ... “If the claimant is able to do other work, then the Commissioner must establish that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that claimant can do.” ... The ALJ erred in failing to elicit reliable vocational expert testimony in order to evaluate the erosion of the occupational base to determine the guidance value of Grid Rule 201.12.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) directs the ALJ to consider a claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience at step five to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work in the national economy.

Nichols v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-26(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience to see if the claimant can make an adjustment to other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§416.920(a)(4)(v). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ properly relied on the testimony of the vocational expert in determining that Nichols could make the adjustment to other work in the national economy. The record includes substantial evidence to support that determination.

At step five, the regulation requires a finding of disability if the agency cannot show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers, and a vocational hypothetical's omission of a time-quota limitation is not fatal when the production-quota limitation implicitly accounts for it.

Baladad v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-30(g)

If defendant cannot meet this burden, then the claimant is “disabled” and entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g); Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040. ... Here, the ALJ erred at step five because he asked an incomplete hypothetical. ... However, such omission is not fatal to the ALJ’s conclusion at step five. ... Given that, the ALJ’s imperfect hypothetical implicitly accounted for the “time quota” condition. As a result, the vocational expert’s testimony supported the ALJ’s conclusion at step five.

Section 416.920(g) shifts the step-five burden to the Commissioner to show that, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors, the claimant can perform other work available in significant numbers in the national economy.

Rivas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-27(g)

At step five of the sequential evaluation analysis, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that, based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience, he or she can do other work. ... The Commissioner may carry this burden by “eliciting the testimony of a vocational expert in response to a hypothetical that sets out all the limitations and restrictions of the claimant.” ... On this basis, the ALJ concluded there are a significant number of jobs available in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. ... Based on the foregoing, the ALJ’s reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony was appropriate and the step five finding was supported by substantial evidence.

At step five, the Commissioner must assess a claimant’s physical ability, age, education, and work experience, then determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Jenbere v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-11(f)

The final step is divided into two parts. First, the Commissioner must assess the claimant's job qualifications by considering 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(f); see also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460 (1983).

At step five, § 416.920(g) requires consideration of the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, but does not require consideration of other factors such as incarceration history.

Cherry v. Comm'r Social SEC. · filed 2020-05-20(g)

At step five of the sequential analysis, the ALJ was required to consider both Cherry’s RFC and his age, education, and work experience to determine whether he could perform jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). The ALJ explicitly took into account Cherry’s lack of prior work experience, his age, and his high school education; based on these factors, the vocational expert considered only unskilled jobs. The regulations did not require the ALJ to consider other factors limiting Cherry’s employment opportunities, such as Cherry’s incarceration history. Id.

At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show, based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, that the claimant can perform other work.

Crawford v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-07-06(g)

At step five of the sequential evaluation analysis, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that, based on the claimant's RFC, age, education, and past work experience, she can do other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(g), 416.960(c). The Commissioner may carry this burden by “eliciting the testimony of a vocational expert in response to a hypothetical that sets out all the limitations and restrictions of the claimant.”

Section 416.920 places the step-five burden on the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other work in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Goulbourne v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-13

At the last step of the disability determination, the Commissioner has the burden to prove that plaintiff is capable of performing other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy in light of plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 416.960. In relying on a vocational expert’s testimony to satisfy the burden, posing a “hypothetical question that does not present the full extent of a claimant’s impairments cannot provide a sound basis for vocational expert testimony.”

At Step Five, § 416.920 requires the Commissioner to determine whether a claimant can perform other work in the national economy, and the claimant remains not disabled if the Commissioner establishes that she can.

Willms v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-16(a)(4)(v), (g)(1)

If the Commissioner reaches Step Five, he must determine whether the claimant is able to do any other work that exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). See also Keyser, 648 F.3d at 724. Here the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Lockwood v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2010). The Commissioner may satisfy this burden through the testimony of a VE or by reference to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines set forth in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 2. If the Commissioner meets this burden, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g)(1). ... The ALJ relied on the VE’s testimony when he found Plaintiff could perform work as a document preparer. The ALJ, however, provided a hypothetical to the VE that did not include all of Plaintiff’s visual limitations as set out by Drs. Taylor, Bernardo, and Berner. The Court has already concluded the ALJ erred when he gave only partial weight to Dr. Taylor’s opinion and little weight to the opinions of Drs. Bernardo and Berner. The Court, therefore, also concludes the ALJ erred at Step Five when he failed to include all of Plaintiff’s limitations in his hypothetical posed to the VE and found Plaintiff could perform work as a document preparer based on the VE’s testimony.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Plemons v. Saul · filed 2020-08-13(a)(4)(v)

“At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant can perform other work that ‘exists in significant numbers in the national economy,’ considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.” [Mascio, 780 F.3d at 635 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.960(c)(2), 416.1429)].

Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires a claimant to be found disabled at step five if the claimant cannot adjust to other work that exists in the national economy; the court upheld the ALJ’s finding that the claimant could adjust to such work based on vocational-expert testimony.

Tillman v. Saul · filed 2020-09-18(a)(4)(v)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a person is disabled. ... If a claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work in the national economy, the claimant will be found disabled. ... Since the vocational expert’s testimony was based on a properly supported RFC determination by the ALJ, the Court finds the ALJ did not err at step five of the sequential evaluation process in this case.

At step five, § 416.920(g) places the burden on the Commissioner to show that, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity and vocational factors, the claimant can adjust to other work; if the claimant can do so, the claimant is not disabled.

Hughes v. Saul · filed 2020-09-23(g)

At step five of the sequential evaluation analysis, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that, based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience, he or she can do other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(g), 416.960(c). ... If the claimant can perform jobs which exists in significant numbers either in the region where the claimant lives or in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(a), 1382c(a)(3)(b).

Section 416.920(f) places the burden on the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past relevant work.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-29(f)

At the last step of the disability determination, the Commissioner has the burden to prove that plaintiff is capable of performing other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy in light of plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 416.960. ... In relying on a vocational expert’s testimony to satisfy this burden, posing a “hypothetical question that does not present the full extent of a claimant’s impairments cannot provide a sound basis for vocational expert testimony.”

At the fifth step, § 416.920 requires the Commissioner to show that the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past relevant work.

Kennedy v. Berryhill · filed 2021-03-05(g)

At the last step of the disability determination, the Commissioner has the burden to prove that plaintiff is capable of performing other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy in light of plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 416.960. In relying on a vocational expert’s testimony to satisfy this burden, posing a “hypothetical question that does not present the full extent of a claimant’s impairments cannot provide a “sound basis for vocational expert testimony.”

At step five, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant can adjust to other work in significant numbers after considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Elmore v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-06(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the Commissioner must demonstrate that the claimant is capable of making an adjustment to other work after considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). ... If, however, the Commissioner proves that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled. Id.; see also Bustamante, 262 F.3d at 953–54. ... Because the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony regarding headaches as well as the lay witness testimony, he improperly formulated Plaintiff’s RFC and thus erred at step five.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Oxendine v. Saul · filed 2021-05-13(a)(4)(v)

“At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant can perform other work that ‘exists in significant numbers in the national economy,’ considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.” [Mascio, 780 F.3d at 635 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.960(c)(2), 416.1429)]. “The Commissioner typically offers this evidence through the testimony of a vocational expert responding to a hypothetical that incorporates the claimant’s limitations.” Id. ... The ALJ erred in failing to communicate these further vocational limitations to the VE. This error is not harmless, as the potentially incomplete RFC formed the basis of the hypothetical which was submitted to the VE, and VE testimony based on incomplete hypotheticals may not provide a basis for an ALJ’s disability determination.

At step five, the regulation requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Morris v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-06-28(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine if the claimant is able to adjust to other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) places the burden at step five on the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Katos v. Saul · filed 2021-07-29(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant can perform other work that ‘exists in significant numbers in the national economy,’ considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

At step five, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Little v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-27(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ 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.

At step five, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) places the burden on the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Hall v. Saul · filed 2021-08-13(a)(4)(v)

“At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant can perform other work that ‘exists in significant numbers in the national economy,’ considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.”

Section 416.920(g) makes the final disability step turn on whether the claimant can perform other substantial gainful work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Charwood v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-31(g)

At step five, the ALJ has the burden to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that claimant can perform despite their identified limitations. ... Here, based on the hypothetical consistent with the RFC ultimately crafted by the ALJ, the vocational expert testified that there were available jobs in the national economy. The ALJ’s RFC and step-five analysis is rational and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv)–(v) requires the ALJ, after finding that a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, to determine whether the claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy.

Nagy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-07(a)(4)

Once a claimant establishes an inability to perform her past relevant work, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant retains the ability to perform a significant number of jobs existing in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv, v); see, e.g., Tom v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1250, 1252 (7th Cir. 1985).

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform other work that exists in the national or regional economy.

Winkel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-27(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential analysis, an ALJ must determine “whether the person can do any other work that exists in the national or regional economy.” Fast v. Barnhart, 397 F.3d 468, 470 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (e); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), (e)).

At step five, § 416.920(g) requires the ALJ to determine whether, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, the claimant can perform work in the national economy.

Lee v. Saul · filed 2021-12-06(g)

To conclude the step 5 analysis, the ALJ determines “whether, given the claimant’s [residual functional capacity], age, education, and work experience, he actually can find some work in the national economy.” Zavalin, 778 F.3d at 846 (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires the Commissioner to determine whether, given a claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors, the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.

Winters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-20(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). In making this determination, the Commissioner must also consider vocational factors such as the claimant’s age, education, and work experience. Id. If the claimant is capable of adjusting to other work, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g)(1). If the claimant is not capable of adjusting to other work, the analysis concludes with a finding that the claimant is disabled and is therefore entitled to benefits. Id.

At step five, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Tuttle v. Saul · filed 2022-02-15(a)(4)(v)

“At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant can perform other work that ‘exists in significant numbers in the national economy,’ considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.” [Mascio, 780 F.3d at 635 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.960(c)(2), 416.1429)].

At step five, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s RFC and vocational factors such as age to determine whether the claimant can do other work.

Rosado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-02(a)(4)(v)

When the disability evaluation process reaches step five, an ALJ must consider a claimant’s RFC along with vocational factors, such as age, in determining whether the claimant is able to do other work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v).

At step five, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity and vocational profile, can perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy.

SUCKIEL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-01(g)

At step five, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant, considering his RFC and vocational profile, can perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers; inability to make that adjustment warrants a finding of disability.

Denmark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21(a)(4)(v)

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. ... In light of Viverette, Bacon, Valdez, and Wooten, and this record, this Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff was capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Subsection (g) requires the ALJ at step five to determine whether a claimant, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity and vocational profile, can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

WAGONER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-05-24(g)

At step five, an ALJ must decide whether the claimant, considering his RFC and vocational profile, can perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).

At step five, the ALJ evaluates whether, given the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, the claimant can adjust to other work.

Vazquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-17(a)(4)(v)

In the fifth step of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ considers a claimant’s RFC, together with the claimant’s “age, education, and work experience to see if [the claimant] can make an adjustment to other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 416.920(g) requires the Commissioner, at step five, to determine whether a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience permit adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

(SS) Mitzel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-11(g)

At Step Five, “the Commissioner has the burden ‘to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that [a] claimant can perform despite [his] identified limitations.’ ” Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 2015) (alterations in quoting source) (quoting Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995)) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g)). ... In concluding the Step Five analysis, the ALJ determines “whether, given the claimant’s [residual functional capacity], age, education, and work experience, he actually can find some work in the national economy.” ... Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, the Court finds that there is an apparent conflict between the RFC determination and the VE’s testimony concerning available jobs at Step Five.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work; if so, the claimant is not disabled, and if not, the claimant is disabled.

Keating v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-29(a)(4)(v)

At step five, an ALJ must consider a claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience to see if the claimant “can make an adjustment to other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). If a claimant can do so, then the Commissioner “will find that [the claimant] is not disabled.” Id. If, however, the claimant “cannot make an adjustment to other work,” the Commissioner will find that the claimant is disabled. Id.

At step five, the ALJ uses the claimant's residual functional capacity to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Porter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-06(a)(v)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) to determine whether they can make an adjustment to other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(v).

At step five, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires determining whether a claimant can perform other work in the national economy considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience.

Vela v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-30(a)(4)(v)

If the claimant cannot perform this work, the fifth and final step in the process determines whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy considering her residual functional capacity and age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(a)(4)(v); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987).

At step five, the Commissioner must identify jobs the claimant can perform despite her limitations, considering her residual functional capacity, age, education, work experience, and vocational evidence.

(SS) Olea v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-02(g)

Again, the ALJ must identify jobs Plaintiff can perform despite her limitations, based on a consideration of Plaintiff’s RFC, age, education and work experience, as well as the information provided by the DOT and the VE. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g); Zavalin, 778 F.3d at 845; Valentine, 574 F.3d at 689. Here, the only factor in the ALJ’s step five determination Plaintiff is challenging is the VE’s testimony, to the extent it was affected by the ALJ’s hypothetical of a person with a high school education.

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant can perform work existing in the national economy and must show that a significant number of jobs exist that the claimant can perform.

Molenkamp v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-12(a)(4)(v)

If the Commissioner reaches Step Five, he must determine whether the claimant is able to do any work that exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). Here the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires the ALJ at step five to determine whether jobs are available in the national economy considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity.

(SS) Curiel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-27(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether there are jobs available for the claimant in the national economy considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 416.920(g) requires denying benefits when a claimant can perform other work in the national economy after considering age, education, and work experience.

Kelley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-16(g)

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 the claimant’s age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 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 show that, given the claimant’s age, work experience, and residual functional capacity, the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Samuel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-19(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential review, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that, considering the claimant’s age, work experience, and RFC, he or she can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Section 416.920(g) places the step-five burden on the Commissioner to establish that a claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, with the claimant’s limitations accounted for.

(SS) Bates v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-15(g)

At Step Five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ has the burden “to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that [a] claimant can perform despite [his] identified limitations.” Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir.1995); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). ... Here, the ALJ failed to elicit testimony from the VE providing clarification on whether plaintiff would be able to perform the tasks as listed under Reasoning Level 2 despite his RFC being analogous to Reasoning Level 1. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s Step Five finding was not supported by substantial evidence.

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors, the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers; if not, the claimant is disabled.

(SS) Westfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-04(g)(1)

Based on the foregoing, it was reasonable for the ALJ to rely on the VE testimony to support the finding at step five that there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform, including machine packager, cleaner, and hand packager. The Court finds no error at step five.

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can do other work considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Asman v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-25(g)(1)

At step five of the five-step sequential process, the ALJ must determine if the claimant is able to do any other work considering her residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g)(1).

At step five, § 416.920(g)(1) requires considering a claimant's residual functional capacity and vocational factors to determine whether the claimant can perform other work available in the national economy; if so, the claimant is not disabled.

Rice v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-16(g)(1)

At step five, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can perform any other work by considering the claimant’s RFC and other factors, including age, education, and past work experience. ... If the claimant can perform other work available in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled. ... Because the VE’s testimony was based on the ALJ's hypothetical question that incorporated all the limitations reasonably recognized by the ALJ, and Rice’s attorney had the opportunity to cross-examine the VE, the VE’s testimony is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s step five determination. ... Accordingly, the ALJ's findings at step five are supported by substantial evidence.

At step five, the claimant’s residual functional capacity is considered with age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Watson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-27(a)(4)(v)

At Step 5, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC in combination with the claimants “age, education, and work experience to see if [the claimant] can make an adjustment to other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g)(1). “Any other work (jobs) that [a claimant] can adjust to must exist in significant numbers in the national economy (either in the region where[a claimant] lives or in several regions in the country).” 20 C.F.R. 416.960(c)(1); 404.1560(c)(1). To support a finding that a claimant is not disabled at Step 5, the Commissioner is “responsible for providing evidence that demonstrates that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that [the claimant] can do, given [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity and vocational factors.” 20 C.F.R. 416.960(c)(2); 404.1560(c)(2).

Section 416.920(g)(1) provides that a claimant is not disabled if the claimant can perform other work available in the national economy.

Robinson v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-24(g)(1)

If the claimant can perform other work available in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled. Schofield, 950 F.3d at 318 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g)(1).

At step five, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-01-06(a)(4)(v)

The ALJ asked Lee to consider Smith’s age, education, and work experience and Smith’s RFC, Tr. 47, which is all the regulations require.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that a claimant can perform specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Boles · filed 2026-02-04(g)

At step five, the Commissioner has the burden “to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that a claimant can perform despite his identified limitations.” Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 2015) (simplified) (first quoting Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995); and then citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g)) (simplified). ... Finally, “to conclude the Step Five analysis, the ALJ determines ‘whether, given the claimant’s [RFC], age, education, and work experience, he actually can find some work in the national economy.’” Id. (first quoting Valentine, 574 F.3d at 689; and then citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g)).

At step five, the regulation directs the Social Security Administration to find a claimant not disabled if the claimant can adjust to other work, and disabled if the claimant cannot.

Allison · filed 2026-03-24(a)(4)

At Step 5, the ALJ is required to consider “whether the claimant is unable to perform any other work in the national economy given his age, education, and work experience.” Butler v. Kijakazi, 4 F.4th 498, 501 (7th Cir. 2021). “If [the claimant] can make an adjustment to other work,” the Social Security Administration “will find that [the claimant] [is] not disabled. If [the claimant] cannot make an adjustment to other work, [the Administration] will find that [the claimant] [is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §416.920(a)(4). ... Here, the ALJ posed hypothetical questions to the vocational expert that mirrored his RFC determination—meaning that Tanya could perform light work, but was restricted to lifting and carrying 20 pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently. ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by not including the five-pound weight restriction in his hypotheticals to the vocational expert.

At step five, education and residual functional capacity are separate factors, so a limitation to unskilled work does not itself lower a claimant’s education level.

Ogle v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-22(a)(4)(v)

Since the finding as to a claimant’s educational background is separate from their RFC, the ALJ appropriately concluded that plaintiff’s education level corresponded to the numerical grade level that he completed. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v) (a claimant’s education and residual functional capacity are among separate factors considered at the fifth step).

Section 416.920 requires SSI disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step process, with the fifth step asking whether the claimant can perform other work considering residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Ladwig v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-07-11

The test that governs SSI claims can be summarized as follows: 1. If an individual is working and that work is substantial gainful activity, then she is not disabled regardless of medical condition, age, education, and work experience. 2. If an individual does not have any impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, then she does not have a severe impairment and is therefore not disabled. 3. If an individual has an impairment that meets the duration requirement and is listed in appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment, then she is disabled. 4. If an impairment does not prevent an individual from doing past relevant work, then she is not disabled. 5. If, considering residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience, an impairment does not prevent an individual from doing other work, then she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The fifth step is at issue in this case.

Section 416.920(e) requires the Commissioner at step four to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and past relevant work to decide whether the claimant can still perform that work.

McPherson v. Apfel · filed 2000-08-31(e)

As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained, at step four, “the Commissioner ... considers the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work and determines whether the claimant can still perform that work.”

At Step 4, § 416.920(e) requires findings about the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the demands of past relevant work to determine whether the claimant can perform that work.

Smith v. Barnhart · filed 2002-09-03(e)

At this step the commissioner must make findings concerning the plaintiffs residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and the physical and mental demands of past work and determine whether the plaintiffs RFC would permit performance of that work.

Section 416.920(e) does not require the ALJ to consider a claimant’s inability to speak English at step four; that factor is considered at step five.

Chavez v. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-12(e)

Thus, the ability to speak English is not a factor the ALJ must consider at the fourth step, but is a factor that must be considered at the fifth step.

Section 416.920(e) requires a finding of not disabled when a claimant can still perform the kind of work done in the past, even if the claimant cannot necessarily return to the exact former job.

Hur v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-04-16(e)

relevant inquiry for the ALJ was not, however, whether she could return to her actual job of running the store with her husband, which may have required some extra exertion, but whether she could do the “kind of work” that she did in the past, i.e., as salesperson/cashier. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e) (2002) (“If you can still do this kind of work, we will find that you are not disabled.”).

At step three, a claimant who does not meet a listed impairment may still be found disabled if the impairment or combination of impairments medically equals a listing, requiring medical findings equal in severity to all criteria of the most similar listing.

Avina v. SSA Commissioner · filed 2025-10-10(d)

If a claimant’s impairment does not meet the criteria of a listed impairment, he may still be disabled if the impairment equals a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir. 2013) (“At the third step of the evaluation, a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is medically equivalent to a listed impairment—establishing a disability and ending the five-step inquiry—if the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments ‘is at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment.’”) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.926(a). A claimant must “present medical findings equal in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar listed impairment” to establish equivalency, Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990), and may not rely simply on “overall functional impact.” Kennedy, 738 F.3d at 1176.

Section 416.920 requires a claimant to satisfy all specified medical criteria for a listed impairment to meet the listing.

Espinosa v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-28

To meet a listing, a claimant must prove that he satisfied all of the specified medical criteria associated with the particular listing. Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920; 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(c)(3).

Section 416.920(d) makes a claimant eligible for benefits when an impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

Greer v. Barnhart · filed 2002-05-28(d)

A claimant is eligible for benefits if he has an impairment, or combination of impairments, which meets or equals 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. 1; Maggard v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 376, 379 (7th Cir. 1999).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires a finding of disability at step three when the claimant's impairment meets or equals an Appendix 1 listing and the duration requirement.

Carmack v. Barnhart · filed 2005-08-31(a)(4)(iii)

The third step states, in pertinent part, “[i]f you have an impairments) that meets or equals one of our listings in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of this chapter and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

Section 416.920(d) treats a claimant as disabled, without considering vocational factors, when the claimant meets or equals a listed impairment.

Washington v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-23(d)

3. An individual who “meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1” of the regulations will be considered disabled without consideration of vocational factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d),'416.920(d). ... At the hearing Dr. Goldstein testified that Washington does not have an impairment that meets or equals the criteria of any impairment enumerated in the Listings for a period of 12 months or longer.

Section 416.920(d) makes the third step of the disability analysis whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment in Appendix 1.

Blum v. Barnhart · filed 2006-11-03(d)

It correctly concluded that the ALJ did not err in determining at Step 3 of the 5-Step analysis for ascertaining disability, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d), that Blum’s impairments do not “meet[] or equal[] a listed impairment in Appendix 1.”

At the third step, a claimant with a severe impairment who meets the duration requirement is entitled to benefits if the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Cline v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-29(d)

According to the Social Security regulations, if a claimant is not working, has a severe impairment, and meets the duration requirement, it must then be determined whether the claimant suffers from one of the “listed” impairments or an impairment equal to one of the listed impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If it is determined that the claimant suffers from a listed impairment or one equal thereto, the inquiry ends and the claimant is entitled to benefits.

Section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant who meets a listed impairment is conclusively presumed disabled, ending the disability inquiry.

Mathis v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-15(d)

Third, to be found disabled, without considering a claimant’s age, education, and work experience, a claimant’s impairment must be of sufficient duration and must either meet or equal an impairment listed by the regulations. Id. If a claimant meets an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, then the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled and the inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 404.1520(d). ... In this case, the ALJ did not discuss Listing 4.02, which is relevant for Plaintiffs heart condition. Tr. 17. ... On remand, the ALJ must review the medical evidence and make a determination as to whether Plaintiffs heart condition meets or equals Listing 4.02.

Section 416.920(d) treats a claimant who meets a listed impairment as conclusively disabled, ending the disability inquiry at step three.

Graham v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-22(d)

If a claimant meets an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, then the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled and the inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 404.1520(d).

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; a claimant who meets or equals a listing is disabled.

Carlson v. Astrue · filed 2010-05-10(a)(4)(iii)

The determination of whether a claimant meets or equals an impairment described in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, is made at step three of the disability determination process. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). During this step, the ALJ has the responsibility to decide whether “medical equivalence” has been established. Id. § 416.926(e). ... If the ALJ finds that a claimant has an impairment that meets or equals one of the listings, then the claimant will be found disabled. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

Section 416.920(d) requires a finding of disability at step three, without considering age, education, or work experience, when the claimant's impairment is listed in Appendix 1.

Dragon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-26(d)

“If you have an impairments) which ... is listed in Appendix 1, we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.”

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and a claimant is disabled if it does; the determination generally rests on medical severity.

Melton v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-07(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the severe impairment meets or equals a “listed” impairment in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment is determined to equal a listed impairment, the claimant is disabled. Step three findings are generally based upon “medical severity” without reference to a claimant’s testimony. (Id.)

At step three, an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals an Appendix 1 listing requires a finding of disability.

Fuimo v. Colvin · filed 2013-06-07(d)

As noted above, if a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meet or equal an Appendix 1 listing, then the claimant is considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). Listing 12.05 concerns mental retardation: ... Thus, both plaintiffs own testimony and the information from medical sources show functioning deficits establishing that plaintiffs impairments meet or equal the listing of 12.05(C). Further, there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s determination that Fuimo’s combination of severe impairments does not meet or equal listing 12.05(C).

At step three, meeting or medically equaling a listed impairment conclusively establishes disability, so the evaluation proceeds no further.

Armstrong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-12-03(d)

In making these findings, the ALJ failed to acknowledge, if Armstrong’s AS met the requirements of Listing 14.09C, then he is conclusively presumed disabled regardless of his ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); Bowen, 482 U.S. at 141.

At step three, a claimant is considered disabled when the impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment and satisfies the duration requirement, ending the evaluation.

Kennedy v. Colvin · filed 2013-12-31(a)(4)(iii)

If the inquiry continues beyond the second step, the third step asks whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listing under 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 and meets the duration requirement. See id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is considered disabled and benefits are awarded, ending the inquiry. See id.

At step three, a claimant qualifies automatically for benefits when the claimant's impairments meet the criteria of a listed disability, and the claimant must present specific medical findings satisfying the particular listing.

Bowman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-03-21(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant automatically qualifies for benefits because his impairments match the criteria for a listed disability. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... As noted, a conclusion that the claimant satisfies the listed criteria automatically entitles him to benefits without further inquiry. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). When a claimant alleges his impairments meet or equal a listed impairment, he must present specific medical findings to satisfy the criteria of the particular listing. See id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1526; Sullivan, 493 U.S. at 530.

At step three, a claimant who meets or equals a listed impairment is presumed disabled without further inquiry.

Holt v. Berryhill · filed 2017-04-05(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant who meets or equals a listing is presumed disabled at step three without further inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

Section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant who meets or equals the criteria of a listed impairment is considered disabled without regard to age, education, or work experience.

Gordon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(d)

Moreover, having found Plaintiff meets the criteria for disability based on a Listing Impairment, the inquiry ceases. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d) (providing claimant who meets or equals criteria of a Listing Impairment is considered disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience).

At the third step of the disability analysis, the claimant’s severe impairments must meet or equal the criteria of an impairment in the Commissioner’s Listing of Impairments.

Nowicki v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-16(a)(4)

The third step that is at issue requires a determination of whether the claimant’s severe impairments meet or equal the criteria of an impairment set forth in the Commissioner’s Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4).

Section 416.920(d) treats a claimant as disabled without further inquiry when the claimant meets or equals a listed impairment.

Baumann v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-28(d)

If a claimant meets or equals a Listing, the claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry.

Section 416.920(d) conclusively presumes disability when a claimant meets a listed impairment or establishes equivalence.

Gaddison v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-01-23(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(a)(4)(iii) requires determining at step three whether a claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; satisfying the criteria results in a finding of disability.

Broughman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-12(a)(4)(iii)

Step Three of the Social Security Administration’s sequential evaluation process requires the ALJ or reviewing court to determine if a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is of a severity to meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in SSA regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). A finding that such criteria are met will result in a finding that the claimant is disabled. Id.

Section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant is disabled if the claimant meets a listed impairment or otherwise establishes medical equivalence to one.

Upton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-02-19(d)

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

At step three, the claimant bears the burden of showing that the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Innocent v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-03(a)(4)(iii)

In the third step of the analysis to determine a claimant’s entitlement to social security benefits, it is the claimant’s burden to bring forth evidence to establish that his impairments meet or are medically equivalent to a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii) & 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); Evans v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 161, 164 (6th Cir. 1987).

Section 416.920(d) ends the five-step inquiry and requires a finding of disability when a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment.

Blocker, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-04(d)

The court notes that upon determining a disability benefits applicant meets the criteria for disability based on a Listing Impairment at step 3, the inquiry ceases without proceeding to the remaining two steps of the five-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d) (providing claimant who meets or equals criteria of a Listing Impairment is considered disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience).

At step three of the disability evaluation, the ALJ must find a claimant disabled if the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listed condition.

Bullard v. Commissioner for Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-19(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three, “If a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed condition, the ALJ must find him disabled.” Sheeks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 544 F. App’x 639, 641 (6th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, disability is presumed when a claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment.

Hau v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-24(d)

If the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment, disability is presumed, and benefits are awarded.

At step three, disability is established when a claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

Hau v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-24(d)

The Commissioner of Social Security has promulgated regulations that provide for a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a Social Security claimant is disabled. ... Thus, the relevant inquiry is on the third step of the analysis, where the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 416.925, 416.926.