20 C.F.R. § 416.920

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the Commissioner to determine at step three whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; meeting the listed criteria results in a finding of disability.

Sumpay v. Saul · filed 2020-03-27(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... If a claimant meets the listed criteria for disability, he will be found to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant’s severe impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment; satisfying a listing establishes disability.

Rathke v. Saul · filed 2020-03-30(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s severe impairment or impairments are such that a finding of disability is appropriate. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant’s severe impairments, individually or in combination, satisfy the requirements of a listing in Appendix 1 of Subpart P in 20 C.F.R. Part 404 (Appendix 1), then “the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled.” ... Substantial evidence in the record, specifically Rathke’s daily activities and Dr. Belzer’s hearing testimony, supports the ALJ’s finding that Rathke’s impairments did not meet or equal listing 1.02.

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

Immke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-22(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 her 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).

At step three, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

Callahan v. Saul · filed 2020-05-29(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... As such, the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff does not meet Listing 1.04 without properly evaluating the relevant evidence. On remand, the ALJ is directed to reconsider the evidence and whether Plaintiff meets or equals a listing. The ALJ is further directed to call a medical expert to assist in determining whether Plaintiff meets or equals a listing, and if so, the onset date of disability.

Section 416.920(d) treats a claimant as disabled when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, but requires medical findings equivalent in severity to all criteria of the most similar listing; satisfying only some criteria is insufficient.

Sincavage v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-29(d)

At step three of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant's alleged impairment is equivalent to a number of listed impairments that are acknowledged as so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; Burnett v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec, 220 F.3d 112, 119 (3d Cir. 2000). In making this determination, the ALJ is guided by several basic principles set forth by the social security regulations, and caselaw. First, if a claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is considered disabled per se, and is awarded benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119. However, to qualify for benefits by showing that an impairment, or combination of impairments, is equivalent to a listed impairment, Plaintiff bears the burden of presenting “medical findings equivalent in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar impairment.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). An impairment, no matter how severe, that meets or equals only some of the criteria for a listed impairment is not sufficient. Id.

Section 416.920(d) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment; meeting or equaling a Listing establishes disability without further inquiry.

Spengemann v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(d)

At step three of the five-step process, the ALJ must assess whether the claimant had an impairment, or combination of impairments, that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the Listings. If a claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a Listing, they are per se disabled and no further inquiry is necessary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 404.1520(d).

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

Hansen v. Saul · filed 2020-11-18(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

At step three, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; if they do, the claimant is disabled.

Simpson v. Saul · filed 2020-12-09(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... If a claimant meets the listed criteria for disability, she will be found to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal a listing. Tr. 19-20. ... Plaintiff has not met his burden in demonstrating his impairment is equal in severity to Listing 14.09D.

At the listing stage of the disability evaluation, meeting or equaling a listed impairment is sufficient to establish disability but is not required.

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

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

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and § 416.920(d) treats an impairment that meets or equals a Listing as disabling without further inquiry.

Moore v. Saul · filed 2021-02-01(a)(4)(iii), (d)

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

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the agency at step three to determine whether a claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, with a favorable finding resulting in disability.

Jandt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-09(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). ... The ALJ's step-three determination indicates he fundamentally misapprehended the medical equivalency evaluation by requiring evidence that Plaintiff experienced dyscognitive seizures which result in an altered state of consciousness. ... Instead, as Plaintiff and the SSA materials point out, the ALJ’s focus should have been on records from the treating sources memorializing Plaintiff’s statements regarding: her symptoms such as aura, the intensity and type of headache pain, nausea, photophobia, the need to lie down in a quiet dark room, medications prescribed, and the duration and frequency of the headaches.

At the third step, a claimant is disabled if an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-10(a)(4)(iii)

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

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) provides that a claimant is disabled when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Jandt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-09(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step, a claimant will be found disabled if her impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments.

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

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-10(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, a claimant will be found disabled if his impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App’x. 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). ... A claimant must satisfy all the criteria to “meet” the listing. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(c)(3) and (d); Hale v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 816 F.2d 1078, 1083 (6th Cir. 1984). A claimant is also deemed disabled if his impairment is the medical equivalent of a listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); Turner, 381 F. Appx. at 491. Medical equivalence means “at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(a).

At step three, § 416.920(d) provides that a claimant is presumed disabled when an impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment, without consideration of age, education, or work experience.

Mackay v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-04(d)

If a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals a condition outlined in the “Listing of Impairments,” then the claimant is presumed disabled at step three, and the ALJ need not to consider his age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

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

Bunn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-29(d)

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

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Toler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-23(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in Appendix 1, Subpart P (the “Listings”). 20 C.F.R. 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, the disability evaluation ends in a finding of disability when the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Grimes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-18(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three of the disability evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if his impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... Here, the ALJ stated that Grimes “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments[.]” ... Considering the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Grimes has not shown error at Step Three.

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

REGAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-06-14(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or equals the severity of any impairment in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). An impairment meets a listed impairment if it satisfies “‘all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.’” Jones, 364 F.3d at 504 (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990)) (emphasis in original).

Section 416.920(d) treats a claimant as disabled when the claimant meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

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

If a claimant meets a listed impairment or otherwise establishes an equivalence, the regulations conclusively presume a disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). ... Although Partridge contends that she meetings Listing 1.04 because of her diagnosis and treatment of stenosis of the lumbar spine (Doc. 12 at 17–19), a diagnosis is not enough to meet the requirements of Listing 1.04. Instead, she must establish one of the three criteria set out in A, B, and C. She has not done so.

At step three, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; meeting or equaling a listing results in a finding of disability.

Hieronymus v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-19(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). The Listing of Impairments “describes each of the major body systems impairments [which are considered] severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity, regardless of his or her age, education or work experience.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.925, 404.1525. “Listed impairments are purposefully set at a high level of severity because ‘the listings were designed to operate as a presumption of disability that makes further inquiry unnecessary.’ ” Kennedy v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990)). “Listed impairments set such strict standards because they automatically end the five-step inquiry, before residual functional capacity is even considered.” Kennedy, 758 F.3d at 1176. If a claimant meets the listed criteria for disability, he will be found to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) ends the sequential evaluation and requires a finding of disability when the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

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

If a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment, the evaluation process is concluded and the claimant is considered disabled without considering the claimant’s age, education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

Section 416.920(d) provides that when a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, the claimant is presumptively disabled and the sequential evaluation does not proceed to steps four or five.

Kautzer, Susan v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-09-15(d)

Thus, if a claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listing, she is presumptively disabled and the ALJ does not proceed to steps four or five of the sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires determining whether the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and meeting or equaling a listing results in a finding of disability.

Higgins v. Saul · filed 2021-09-29(a)(4)(iii)

Put another way, a plaintiff must meet strict standards to meet or equal a Listing because doing so will result in a finding of disability. See id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

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

Barnett-Harrell v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-08(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... The ALJ found Plaintiff’s impairments do not meet or equal Listing 14.09D but did not set forth an analysis of the listing. Tr. 19. As above, the ALJ’s step three analysis is devoid of any analysis of Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia symptoms. On remand, the ALJ is instructed to reconsider whether Plaintiff’s impairments meet or equal Listing 14.09D and set forth an analysis as the listing.

Section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant is disabled when an impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a Listing, and the claimant must satisfy all specified medical criteria; satisfying only some criteria does not qualify.

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-08(d)

A plaintiff will be found disabled if the individual has an impairment, or combination of impairments, that meets or equals one of the Listings. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). The burden is on the plaintiff to present medical findings that his or her impairment meets or equals a Listing. See Davis v. Astrue, No. 09-CV-0186, 2010 WL 2545961, *3 (N.D.N.Y. June 3, 2010). A plaintiff must show that his or her impairment meets or equals all of the specified medical criteria of a Listing. See Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990), superceded by statute on other grounds. If a plaintiff's impairment "manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely," the impairment does not qualify. Id.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, applying the listings’ strict criteria.

Lachey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-14(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a plaintiff’s impairments, individually or in combination, meet or equal a Listing. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). ... Put another way, a plaintiff must meet strict standards to meet or equal a Listing because doing so will result in a finding of disability. See id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

At step three of the disability evaluation, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

Bowie v. Saul · filed 2022-01-31(a)(4)(iii)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ is required to consider whether the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the ALJ finds the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment, the claimant is conclusively presumed disabled without consideration of the claimant’s age, education, or work experience.

At Step 3, the ALJ determines whether an impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does, the claimant is considered disabled and awarded benefits, but meeting only some listing criteria is insufficient.

Longer v. Saul · filed 2022-03-14(a)(4)(iii) (d)

At Step 3 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether, singly or in combination, a claimant’s ailments and impairments are so severe that they are per se disabling and entitle the claimant to benefits. As part of this Step 3 disability evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s alleged impairment is equivalent to a number of listed impairments, commonly referred to as listings, that are acknowledged as so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1; Burnett, 220 F.3d 112, 119. In making this determination, the ALJ is guided by several basic principles set forth by the social security regulations and case law. First, if a claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is considered disabled per se and is awarded benefits. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(d); Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119. However, to qualify for benefits by showing that an impairment, or combination of impairments, is equivalent to a listed impairment, a plaintiff bears the burden of presenting “medical findings equivalent in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar impairment.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990) (citing 20 C.F.R. §416.920(d); SSR 83-19 at 91). An impairment, no matter how severe, that meets or equals only some of the criteria for a listed impairment is not sufficient. Id.

Section 416.920(d) provides for a disability finding at step three, without considering age, education, or work experience, when a claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Lopez v. O'Malley, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21(d)

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

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at Step 3 to determine whether a claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and § 416.920(d) treats an impairment that meets or equals a listing as per se disabling.

Mertz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-15(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At Step 3 of this sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether, singly or in combination, a claimant’s ailments and impairments are so severe that they are per se disabling and entitle the claimant to benefits. As part of this Step 3 disability evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s alleged impairment is equivalent to a number of listed impairments, commonly referred to as listings, that are acknowledged as so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1; Burnett, 220 F.3d 112, 119. In making this determination, the ALJ is guided by several basic principles set forth by the social security regulations and case law. First, if a claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is considered disabled per se and is awarded benefits. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(d); Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119.

At step three of the disability evaluation, a claimant can establish disability by showing that her impairment meets or equals the criteria of a listed impairment.

Salazar v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-07(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation, a claimant can establish disability if she shows that her impairment meets or equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s severe impairments, separately or in combination, meet or medically equal a listed impairment, and must evaluate relevant evidence rather than rely on a boilerplate finding.

Clark v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-07(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s severe impairments, either separately or in combination, meet or equal one of the presumptively disabling impairments listed in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). “An ALJ must evaluate the relevant evidence before concluding that a claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment. A boilerplate finding is insufficient to support a conclusion that a claimant’s impairment does not do so.”

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

Doston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-09(a)(4)(iii)

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

Section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant who meets or equals a listed impairment is considered disabled without further inquiry.

(SS) MacDowell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-22(d)

If a claimant meets or equals a Listing, the claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Section 416.920(d) treats a claimant as disabled when the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Martin v. Commissioner Of Social Security · filed 2023-04-05(d)

A “listed impairment” is one considered by the Social Security Administration to be “severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity” and if a claimant’s impairments meet all the criteria of a particular listing, or are medically equivalent to a listing, the claimant is considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(a), 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, § 416.920 places the burden on the claimant to show that an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to step four.

Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-19(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the claimant carries the burden to show he has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. See Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 354 (6th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If a claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, he is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to step four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)-(e); see also Rabbers, 582 F.3d at 653 (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”) ... “The Commissioner’s regulations governing the evaluation of disability for DIB and SSI are identical . . . and are found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, and 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 respectively.” ... The Court’s references to DIB regulations should be read to incorporate the corresponding and identical SSI regulations for purposes of this Order.

At step three, the claimant must prove that her impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, meaning a condition severe enough to establish disability.

Tedrow v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-20(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, Plaintiff has the burden to prove that she has a medical condition that meets or equals a listing, i.e., a condition that is so severe it is per se disabling. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (claimant bears the burden of proving she has an impairment that meets or equals the criteria of an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the Commissioner’s regulations).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment, and the claimant bears the burden of showing that they do.

Hacker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-11(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must decide whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal in severity and duration the impairments listed in Appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). It is the claimant who bears the burden of demonstrating that his impairment meets or medically equals a certain listing.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and subsection (d) treats a claimant who does as disabled without further inquiry.

(SS) Carvalho v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-28(a)(4)(iii), (d)

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

At step three of the disability evaluation, the claimant bears the burden of proving that an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Emery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-21(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the burden of proof rests solely on the claimant. Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the Commissioner to determine at step three whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.

Alexander v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-12(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... On remand, the ALJ is instructed to reevaluate the evidence at step three and reconsider whether Plaintiff meets or equals a listing, including Listings 1.15, 1.02, and 14.09D, for a portion or the entirety of the relevant period.

Section 416.920(d) requires a claimant to satisfy all specified medical criteria for an applicable listing; a diagnosis alone is insufficient.

McBride v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-19(d)

At step three, the ALJ must assess whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals an impairment listed in the Appendix to the federal regulations (the Listings), 20 C.F.R. Part 404, subpart P, Appendix 1, and must satisfy the duration requirement, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). The listings describe impairments that are so severe that they are presumptively disabling, and, thus, further inquiry is unnecessary. Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013). A claimant may not meet a listing based solely on a diagnosis. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). A claimant must show that she meets all of the specified medical criteria for the listing. Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990).

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

Schlader v. Saul · filed 2023-11-27(a)(4)(iii)

If an impairment meets or equals a listing in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, a claimant will be found per se disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment; if one does, disability is presumed and benefits are awarded.

Thai v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-18(a)(4)(iii), (d)

If Plaintiff’s impairments are not one of the identified impairments, then at step three of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether one or more of a claimant's impairments meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If a claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment, disability is presumed, and benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, the sequential evaluation requires deciding whether an impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment, and the ALJ must compare a severe impairment to a listing when the claimant presents evidence supporting equivalence.

Devereaux v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-20(e)

Does the impairment “meet or equal” one of a list of specific impairments described in 20 C.F.R. Part 220, Appendix 1? If so, the claimant is disabled. If not, proceed to step four. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). ... The ALJ was required, at least, to compare Devereaux’s degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine to a listing in an equivalency determination. See Burch at 683.

At step three, the regulation requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; if they do, the claimant is found disabled.

Buchheit v. O'Malley · filed 2023-12-27(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... If a claimant meets the listed criteria for disability, she will be found to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s impairments and combinations of impairments did not meet or equal any listings, including Listings 12.03, 12.04, and 12.15. Tr. 706. ... Plaintiff does not set forth any analysis as to how she meets or equals Listings 12.03, 12.04, or 12.15. She does not cite to any evidence in support of her contention she meets or equals a listing. As such, Plaintiff has not met her burden in demonstrating the ALJ erred at step three. ... As such, the ALJ did not err at step three. Plaintiff is not entitled to remand on these grounds.

At step three, the Commissioner must decide whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does, disability is established without considering age, education, or work experience.

Thorley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-28(a)(4)(iii)

As part of step three, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s impairment meets or is medically equal to the conditions for one of the “listed” impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (a “Listing”).5 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the ALJ finds that claimant’s impairment meets or is medically equal to a Listing, a finding of disability is directed without consideration of “age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). ... For all of these reasons, the ALJ did not err in its conclusion that Thorley did not have any impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled any of the listings for step 3.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the disability evaluation to consider at step three whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

WHITSETT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-05-01(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether any of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, or the combination thereof, meets or medically equals the severity of one of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). An impairment meets a listed impairment if it satisfies “‘all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.’” Jones, 364 F.3d at 504 (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990)) (emphasis in original). “A claimant cannot qualify for benefits under the ‘equivalence’ step by showing that the overall functional impact of his unlisted impairment or combination of impairments is as severe as that of a listed impairment.” Sullivan, 493 U.S. at 531 (emphasis added).

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment; benefits follow only when the applicable listing's criteria are satisfied, not when only some criteria are met.

Shadel v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-26(a)(4)(iii), (d)

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

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, singly or in combination, meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

O. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-09-12(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or medically equals the severity of one of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). An impairment meets a listed impairment if it satisfies “‘all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.’”

At step three, a claimant is disabled if her impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; equivalence requires severity and duration at least equal to the listing's criteria.

List v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-13(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant will be found “disabled” at Step Three of the sequential evaluation if her impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). ... Alternatively, a claimant may “equal” the listing by showing that the impairment is “at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.926(a); Reynolds, 424 F. App’x at 414 (citation omitted).

At step three, § 416.920(d) treats a claimant as disabled when a severe impairment lasting at least twelve months meets or medically equals a listed impairment; the ALJ must fully evaluate the evidence bearing on medical equivalence.

Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-23(d)

Third, if the claimant is not performing substantial gainful activity, has a severe impairment that is expected to last for at least twelve months, and the impairment, or combination of impairments, meets or medically equals a required listing under 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, the claimant is presumed to be disabled regardless of age, education or work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). ... But where the ALJ explicitly addressed the frequency criterion of Listing 11.02, and where there is no evidence that the ALJ fully considered all the evidence pertaining to the frequency of Ms. Evans’s migraine headaches—the sole articulated reason for finding that she did not medically equal the listing—I am convinced that this matter should be returned to the Agency for the ALJ to fully consider and articulate in the first instance whether Ms. Evans medically equals the listing.

At step three, the Social Security Administration determines whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

(SS) Vanderhoff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-06(d)

At step three of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals an impairment contained in the listings. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). ... For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has not met her burden in demonstrating her weight loss and IBS, either singly or in combination with mental impairments, equals listing 5.08. The Court finds no error at step three.

At step three, the ALJ determines whether a claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; the claimant must satisfy all criteria for the listing, because meeting or equaling only some criteria is insufficient.

Heller v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-01-27(a)(4)(iii), (d)

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

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

Holder v. Dudek · filed 2025-02-26(d)

At step three, the ALJ determines whether “a claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in [20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1].” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999). The Listing of Impairments describes specific impairments of each of the major body systems “which are considered severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(a). If a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment, she will be found disabled at this step without further inquiry. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). ... A claimant bears the burden of proving that her impairments satisfy all the criteria of a particular listing. Id. “For a claimant to show that [her] impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (emphasis in original). If a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or exceeds a “listing,” no specific finding is necessary as to the claimant’s ability to perform their past relevant work or any other jobs. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At Step Three of the childhood SSI evaluation, a claimant is disabled if the impairment meets a listed impairment or equals one in severity and duration.

Harrison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-26(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant will be found “disabled” at Step Three of the childhood sequential evaluation if his impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). Each listing specifies “the objective medical and other findings needed to satisfy the criteria of that listing.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(c)(3); Reynolds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 424 F. App’x 411, 414 (6th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to “meet” the listing. Id. A claimant is also disabled if his impairment “equals” the listing—that is, if the impairment is “at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.926(a); Reynolds, 424 F. App’x at 414 (citation omitted).

Section 416.920(d) treats a claimant as disabled at step three only when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; equivalence requires medical findings matching all criteria of the most similar listing.

Wall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-03(d)

First, if a claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is considered disabled per se and is awarded benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119. However, to qualify for benefits by showing that an impairment, or combination of impairments, is equivalent to a listed impairment, a plaintiff bears the burden of presenting “medical findings equivalent in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar impairment.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). An impairment, no matter how severe, that meets or equals only some of the criteria for a listed impairment is not sufficient. Id.

At step three, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant's impairment, alone or in combination, meets or equals a listed impairment; if it does, the claimant is disabled.

Fernandez v. O'Malley · filed 2025-05-15(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At Step 3 of this sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether, singly or in combination, a claimant's ailments and impairments are so severe that they are per se disabling and entitle the claimant to benefits. As part of this step three disability evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant's alleged impairment is equivalent to a number of listed impairments, commonly referred to as listings, that are acknowledged as so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1; Burnett, 220 F.3d 112, 119. In making this determination, the ALJ is guided by several basic principles set forth by the social security regulations and case law. First, if a claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is considered disabled per se and is awarded benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119.

Section 416.920 requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if it does, the claimant is per se disabled, and equivalence requires medical findings equivalent in severity to all criteria of the most similar listing.

Ulshafer v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-06-04(a)(4)(iii), (d)

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

At step three, disability is presumed when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment and satisfies the duration requirement.

Alvidres v. O'Malley · filed 2025-06-13(d)

If a claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment and meets the duration requirement, disability is presumed, and benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

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

Born v. O'Malley · filed 2025-07-15(a)(4)(iii)

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

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine at step three whether a claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; under § 416.920(d), meeting or equaling a listing establishes disability and entitlement to benefits.

Alexandre v. O'Malley · filed 2025-07-21(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At Step 3 of this sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether a claimant’s impairments or combination of impairments are so severe that they are disabling, entitling the claimant to benefits. As part of this analysis, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s alleged impairment is equivalent to one or more listed impairments, commonly referred to as listings, that are acknowledged to be so severe as to preclude the claimant from working. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1; , 220 F.3d 112, 119. ... Thus, if a claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is considered disabled and is awarded benefits. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(d); , 220 F.3d at 119. The claimant bears the burden of presenting “medical findings equivalent in severity to the criteria for the one most similar impairment.” , 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990) (citing 20 C.F.R. §416.920(d); SSR 83-19 at 91). An impairment that meets or equals only some of the criteria for a listed impairment will not be sufficient.

Section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant is conclusively disabled at Step Three if an impairment meets or medically equals all the criteria of a listed impairment; otherwise, the sequential evaluation proceeds to Step Four.

Burr · filed 2026-01-06(d)

At Step Three, the clamant has the burden to show an impairment that meets or medically equals all of the criteria of a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 354 (6th Cir. 2001); Rabbers v. Comm’r of SSA, 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2009) (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”). ... If an impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a listed impairment, the claimant is conclusively disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987).

Section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant is disabled at Step Three when the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Schandel · filed 2026-02-26(d)

At Step Three of the disability evaluation process, if the claimant shows her impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, she is deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); see also Smith-Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 579 F.App’x 426, 432 (6th Cir. 2014).

At step three, § 416.920(d) presumes disability only when a claimant's severe impairment or combination meets or medically equals a listed impairment; the claimant must satisfy every element of the listing.

Snay · filed 2026-03-17(d)

A claimant’s impairment must meet every element of a Listing before the Commissioner may conclude that he is disabled at Step Three of the sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 855 (6th Cir. 1986).

At step three, a claimant bears the burden of showing that a severe impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, which produces an automatic disability finding.

Washington v. Bisignano · filed 2026-03-30(d)

The burden to meet a listed impairment is heavy, but one the plaintiff must bear in order to receive an automatic finding of disability under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). ... An ALJ is not required to make detailed findings or explicitly discuss why a plaintiff did not actually meet a listing as long as substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s impairment did not meet a listing. ... However, given that the ALJ was not in possession of the additional evidence and the Appeals Council did not address it, the court cannot discern if Listing 4.02 was properly considered.

Section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant who meets or equals a listed impairment is considered disabled without further inquiry.

Jimenez · filed 2026-03-30(d)

At step three, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant’s impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Each Listing sets forth the “symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings” which must be established for a claimant’s impairment to meet the Listing. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999). If a claimant meets or equals a Listing, the claimant is considered disabled without further inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, a claimant is considered disabled if an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Foley · filed 2026-03-31(d)

“If a claimant meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment, then the claimant is considered disabled.” Fitzenreiter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:16 CV 2442, 2018 WL 372759, at *9 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 10, 2018), citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d); 404.1520(d).

Section 416.920(d) treats a claimant who meets a listed impairment as disabled even if the claimant could return to past work.

Helen AMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1984-07-19(d)

If an individual’s impairment “meets the duration requirement and is listed in Appendix 1 ... we will find (the claimant) disabled____” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). Therefore, upon cessation of employment, the regulations support a finding of disability if one meets the listings, even though the statute relates disability to the inability to work because of the impairment.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv) places the assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity within the ALJ’s step-four evaluation.

Turner v. SSA · filed 2022-06-10(a)(4)(iv)

Plaintiff misunderstands the ALJ’s role in determining his RFC. “The Social Security Act instructs that the ALJ—not a physician—ultimately determines a claimant’s RFC.” Coldiron v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 Fed. App’x 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2010). The ALJ is responsible for “evaluating the medical evidence and the claimant’s testimony to form an assessment of [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity.” Webb v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 368 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv)).

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity first, then use it at steps four and five to decide whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or adjust to other work available in significant numbers.

McKnight v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-02(e)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e), the ALJ first determines the claimant’s RFC and then determines under the fourth and fifth steps whether there are jobs in significant numbers available to persons with that RFC.

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant's residual functional capacity from the record before determining the claimant's ability to work.

Larocque v. Comm. SSA · filed 2006-12-20(e)

As part of the analysis at the fifth step, the ALJ is required to make a residual functional capacity assessment based on the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e) & 416.945. On review, the court must determine whether the residual functional capacity assessment is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity from the record as part of the sequential disability analysis.

Larocque v. Barnhart · filed 2006-12-20(e)

As part of the analysis at the fifth step, the ALJ is required to make a residual functional capacity assessment based on the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e) & 416.945.

Section 416.920(e) requires the Commissioner to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity after the claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, and that assessment is used at steps four and five.

Brennan v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-07(e)

If plaintiffs impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the Commissioner assesses claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). This assessment is used at both step four and step five of the process.

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity before deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work at step four.

Perez v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-17(e)

Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”)1. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). RFC is what one “can still do despite [his or her] limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). ... The ALJ’s RFC is incomplete and not supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ failed to develop the record fully.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv) requires the Commissioner to compare a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the claimant’s past relevant work at Step 4, and the RFC finding must be adequately supported and explained.

Bard v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2010-08-31(a)(4)(iv)

At Step 4 of the sequential evaluation process the Commissioner evaluates the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC), as well as the claimant’s past relevant work. If the claimant’s RFC is compatible with his or her past relevant work, the claimant will be found “not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). ... The Administrative Law Judge’s Step 4 RFC finding does not even expressly draw on the opinion of Dr. Gates or Dr. Houston (neither of whom assessed what functional restriction might be associated with a moderate deficit in concentration, persistence, and pace, in any event).

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before steps four and five and use it to assess what work the claimant can perform.

Warner v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-25(e)

Before performing steps four and five, the ALJ must determine the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC”) or what tasks the claimant can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R §§ 416.920(e), 416.945. The RFC is then used during steps four and five to help determine what, if any, employment the claimant is capable of. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), 416.945(a)(5).

At step four, § 416.920(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work, considering all of the claimant’s limitations.

Mills v. Colvin · filed 2013-08-14(a)(4)(iv)

At the fourth step in the analysis, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s RFC and ability to engage in past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(e).

At steps four and five, § 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence when deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or other work.

Herron v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2016-05-06(e)

In determining at steps four and five whether a claimant can perform her past relevant work or other work, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

At step four, the regulation requires the ALJ to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work.

Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-28(a)(4)(iv)

The ALJ is responsible for assessing an individual’s residual functional capacity (RFC). 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv); 416.946(c). But, the ALJ’s RFC assessment must be “based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, including information about the individual’s symptoms and any ‘medical source statements’ -- i.e., opinions about what the individual can still do despite his or her impairment(s)-- submitted by an individual’s treating source or other acceptable medical sources.” Id. (footnote omitted). ... These medical opinions constitute substantial evidence in support of the ALJ’s RFC assessment. Thus, Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit. ... In the present case, ALJ Kenyon applied the correct legal standards to determine Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.

At step four, the regulation requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to return to past relevant work.

Hynson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-04(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential process, the ALJ evaluates a claimant’s RFC and ability to return to past relevant work.

At step four, the claimant bears the burden of establishing residual functional capacity and proving that the claimant cannot perform any past relevant work.

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

The claimant then bears the burden of establishing his residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and proving that he cannot perform any past relevant work. ... Cockrell bears the burden to present affirmative evidence that he cannot sustain workplace performance. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). But he did not do so because the guardianship order was the only new evidence he presented, and it is not a medical record, nor does it show a sufficient basis for its findings.

At step four of the disability evaluation, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and consider the claimant’s past relevant work.

Casey v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-31(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). ... Here, however, it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s testimony is credible because the ALJ failed to provide any specific analysis of Plaintiff’s credibility. ... The Court therefore finds that the ALJ failed to properly consider Plaintiff’s symptoms complaints when formulating his RFC.

At the fourth and fifth steps, the ALJ assesses a claimant’s residual functional capacity, and a vocational expert evaluates whether the claimant can adjust to other work based on that capacity and the claimant’s vocational profile.

Duron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

Under [the social security] regulations, the ALJ is charged with the responsibility of evaluating the medical evidence and the claimant's testimony to form an “assessment of [her] residual functional capacity.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). The vocational expert testifies on the basis of a claimant's “residual functional capacity and . . . age, education, and work experience” and assesses whether the claimant “can make an adjustment to other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). The vocational expert’s testimony is directed solely to whether, given a claimant’s age, experience, and education, along with the ALJ's assessment of what she “can and cannot do,” there exist a significant number of employment opportunities for her in the regional and national economies.

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

Fuchs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-30(a)(4)(iv)

As noted above, at step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s RFC, as well as his ability to perform his past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.945. In making this determination, an ALJ must decide based upon all the relevant evidence what a claimant can do in a work setting despite any physical or mental limitations caused by the claimant’s impairments and related symptoms. Id.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv) makes the fourth step of the disability evaluation whether the claimant's residual functional capacity permits her to perform her past work.

Mota v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-15(a)(4)(iv)

An ALJ must proceed through a five-step process to make a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. ... Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant's severe impairment, she has the residual functional capacity to perform her past work.

At step four, § 416.920(a)(4)(iv) places on the claimant the burden of establishing residual functional capacity and proving inability to perform past relevant work.

Martinson v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-06(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential analysis, Plaintiff must carry the burden to establish his RFC and prove he is not capable of performing any past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work based on the pertinent evidence.

Arzola v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-29(a)(4)(iv)

As noted above, the ALJ’s task at step four is to determine a claimant’s RFC and his ability to engage in his past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.945. To do so, the ALJ must decide given all the pertinent evidence before her what a claimant can do in a work setting despite any physical or mental limitations caused by the claimant’s impairments and related symptoms. Id.

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

Cummings v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-22(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential process, the ALJ evaluates a claimant’s RFC and ability to return to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) & 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity before step four and to consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including nonsevere impairments; section 416.920(g) requires considering whether, given the claimant’s RFC and vocational factors, the claimant can perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

(SS) Cox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-01(e), (g)

“Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e); Nowden v. Berryhill, No. EDCV 17-00584-JEM, 2018 WL 1155971, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018). ... The RFC must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e); 416.945(a)(2); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, available at 1996 WL 374184 (Jul. 2, 1996). ... That is, the ALJ must consider potential occupations the claimant may be able to perform, based on the claimant’s RFC, age, education and work experience, and the information provided by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) and the VE. See id. at 846; Valentine, 574 F.3d at 689; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).”

At step four of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work.

Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-23(a)(4)(iv)

As noted above, the ALJ’s task at step four is to determine a claimant’s RFC and her ability to engage in her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.945. To do so, the ALJ must discern from all the pertinent evidence before her what a claimant can do in a work setting despite any physical or mental limitations caused by the claimant’s impairments and related symptoms. Id. § 416.945(a)(1).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant work, based on the pertinent evidence concerning the claimant’s impairments and symptoms.

Resti v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-30(a)(4)(iv)

As noted above, the ALJ’s task at step four is to determine a claimant’s RFC and his ability to perform his past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.945. To do so, an ALJ must discern from all the pertinent evidence before him what a claimant can do in a work setting despite any physical or mental restrictions caused by his medically determinable impairments—severe and non-severe—and related symptoms.

At step four, § 416.920 requires the ALJ to evaluate the claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to return to past relevant work.

Henley v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-21(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential process, the ALJ evaluates a claimant’s RFC and ability to return to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) & 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

Section 416.920(a)(iv) requires the ALJ at step four to assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work, while considering all of the claimant’s impairments.

Roach v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-08(a)(iv)

At step four, the ALJ determines the claimant’s RFC, which is his ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis. Britt v. Saul, 860 F. App'x 256, 258 (4th Cir. 2021) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(iv), (e); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(iv), (e); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). ... Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined the ALJ had done all that was required at step four.

At step four, the claimant bears the burden of establishing her residual functional capacity and proving that she cannot perform any past relevant work.

Fuller · filed 2026-01-15(a)(4)(iv)

It was Plaintiff’s burden to prove the limitations in her RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv); Young, 221 F.3d at 1069 n.5. A claimant’s failure to carry that burden does not constitute legal error on the part of the ALJ.

Section 416.920(a) requires the ALJ to consider every medically determinable impairment, both individually and in combination, when evaluating disability.

Salazar v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-23(a)

It is beyond dispute that an ALJ is required to consider all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, singly and in combination; the statute and regulations require nothing less. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a), 416.923, 416.945. Further, the failure to consider all of the impairments is reversible error.

Section 416.920(a) requires the disability determination to consider all of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments, singly and in combination.

Salazar v. Barnhart · filed 2006-10-05(a)

It is beyond dispute that an ALJ is required to consider all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, singly and in combination; the statute and regulations require nothing less.

At steps two and three, § 416.920(c) requires an ALJ to identify impairments that significantly limit basic work activities, while § 416.920(d) requires deciding whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and the court treated Listing 12.05C’s additional significant limitation as equivalent to step-two severity.

Smith v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-26(c), (d)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is “severe” or a combination of impairments that is “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” if it significantly limits an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. Id. At step three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment, or combination of impairments, which meets or equals an impairment found in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926). ... The law in this area has progressed, however, and courts in this circuit now typically equate the two standards. See Higgins v. Barnhart, 42 Fed.Appx. 846, 849-50 (7th Cir.2002) (affording substantial deference to SSA’s interpretations of its own regulations and observing that “the newly revised § 12.00A, which provides guidance for evaluating mental disorders, equates ‘additional and significant’ with ‘severe’ ”); Kelley v. Colvin, No. 12-C-064, 2014 WL 524642, at *12 (N.D.Ind. Feb. 10, 2014) (following Higgins); Peterson v. Astrue, No. 09-C-50084, 2010 WL 5423751, at *6 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 22, 2010) (same). Although the difference is not dispositive here, this court agrees with the reasoning of Higgins and concludes that the ALJ erred only if she failed to find that Smith’s additional impairments were “severe” at step two- of the sequential analysis.

Section 416.920 requires the ALJ at step two to assess the severity of each impairment both individually and in combination with the claimant’s other impairments.

Jacobson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-23

According to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, step two of the sequential evaluation process requires the ALJ to consider the severity of an impairment, both individually and in combination with a claimant’s other impairments.

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires adjudicators to consider the combined effect of a claimant's medically determinable impairments at steps two and four of the five-step sequential disability evaluation.

MARASCO v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-02-01(a)(4)

The Court next addresses Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ failed to consider how the combination of Plaintiff’s impairments limited his abilities. ALJs consider the combined effect of a claimant’s medically determinable impairments at steps two and four of the five-step sequential evaluation they use to assess disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). Step two is a threshold determination—claimants must have one severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments to move to the next step of the analysis. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). At this early step, even one severe impairment or combination thereof is sufficient. Id.; SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, at *3 (S.S.A. Jan. 1, 1985) (“A claim may be denied at step two only if the evidence shows that the individual’s impairments, when considered in combination, are not medically severe[.]”). Later in the evaluation, at step four, ALJs must determine claimants’ remaining work abilities, that is, their residual functional capacity (“RFC”), so that they can evaluate whether it is possible for claimants to return to past work or adjust to other available work.

Section 416.920(a) requires a claimant to prove to the Social Security Administration that the claimant is disabled.

(SS) Macias v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-04(a)

Because it is Plaintiff's burden to present evidence of disability, the mere absence of a report from a treating or examining physician does not give rise to a duty to develop the record; instead, that duty is triggered only where there is an inadequacy or ambiguity. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005); Alvarez v. Astrue, No. 1:08-cv-01205-SMS, 2009 WL 2500492, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2009) (finding absence of report from treating physician did not give rise to a duty to develop the record where record contained opinions of the state agency physicians and plaintiff's complete treatment records); see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (“An individual shall not be considered to be under a disability unless [they] furnish[ ] such medical and other evidence of the existence thereof as the Commissioner of Social Security may require.”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a) (“[Y]ou have to prove to us that you are ... disabled.”).

Section 416.920 places on the claimant the burdens of production and proof to show that she cannot do past work because of a significant limitation.

James v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-02-05

The claimant bears both the burden of production and the burden of proof to show that she is “unable to do past work due to the significant limitation.” Baillargeon v. Berryhill, 2019 DNH 009, 2019 WL 192887 at *5 (D.N.H. Jan. 15, 2019) (quoting Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001)); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920.

Section 416.920 places on an SSI applicant the burden to prove disability under the sequential evaluation process.

Curtis v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-08-30

Pursuant to the governing regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, an individual who files an application for Social Security SSI must prove that he is disabled.

At step two, the severity analysis does not consider a claimant's age, education, or work experience.

Warner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-23(c)

Age, education, and work experience are not considered in this analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Under the sequential evaluation, a failure to classify an impairment as severe at step two is harmless when the ALJ proceeds through the remaining steps and considers that impairment's limitations in the RFC.

Page v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-27(a)(4)

Here, "[t]he ALJ's step two error is not grounds for reversal . . . because he 'continued through the remaining steps and considered all of the claimant's impairments.'" ... Because the ALJ considered the impact of Plaintiff's right hip trochanteric bursitis on her RFC at Step Four, the ALJ's Step Two error was harmless.

At step two, § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment and whether it is severe or non-severe.

Benoit v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-14(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether a claimant's impairment is (1) medically determinable or non-medically determinable, and (2) severe or non-severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii); SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856.

Section 416.920(a) requires the ALJ to proceed to the next step of the sequential evaluation when the claimant has a severe impairment.

HALM v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-07-19(a)

If a claimant is found to have a severe impairment, then the ALJ proceeds to the next step. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(a). Plaintiff suggests that the ALJ failed to mention probative evidence and completely disregarded his neck, ankle, and right shoulder pain. (ECF No. 15, pp. 15-16). A review of the case reveals that such is not the case.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform, but need not show that the claimant could actually find a job.

Russell v. SSA · filed 2004-01-09(f)

Ultimately, at step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show “that there are jobs in the national economy that [the] claimant can perform.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f) (2003); Heggarty v . Sullivan, 947 F.2d 9 9 0 , 995 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam); see also Keating v . Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 848 F.2d 2 7 1 , 276 (1st Cir. 1988) (per curiam). The Commissioner must show that the claimant’s limitations do not prevent her from engaging in substantial gainful work, but need not show that the claimant could actually find a job. See Keating, 848 F.2d at 276.

At step five, § 416.920(f) shifts the burden to the Commissioner to show that jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Wrenn v. SSA · filed 2005-06-27(f)

At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show "that there are jobs in the national economy that [the] claimant can perform." 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f); Heggarty v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 990, 995 (1st Cir. 1991) . The Commissioner must show that the claimant's limitations do not prevent him from engaging in substantial gainful work, but need not show that the claimant could actually find a job. See Keating v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 276 (1st Cir. 1988).

At step five 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.

Hamper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-02-08(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).

At step five, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) shifts the burden to the Commissioner to show that a claimant unable to perform past relevant work can adjust to other work, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Eckermann v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-21(a)(4)(v)

. Once it is determined that a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show whether the claimant can make an adjustment to other work, taking into consideration the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. 416.920(a)(4)(v).

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

House v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-23(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, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires evaluating a claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience to decide whether the claimant can adjust to other work in the national economy; inability to adjust means disability.

Walsh v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-13(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, a claimant is disabled if unable to adjust to other work in the national economy, and the Commissioner must show that suitable jobs exist in significant numbers.

Lovett v. Saul · filed 2020-04-27(a)(4)(v)

At step four, the ALJ must determine whether, given his RFC, the claimant can return to his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1520(f), 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(f); Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1091–92 (8th Cir. 2012). If the claimant can still perform past relevant work, he will not be found to be disabled; if not, the ALJ proceeds to step five to determine whether the claimant is able to perform any other work in the national economy in light of his age, education and work experience. 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). ... After consideration of the evidence in the record in light of the factors discussed in Biestek, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s reliance on the VE’s testimony. ... there was sufficient evidence from which a “reasonable mind” could conclude that the VE’s testimony was reliable and that the Commissioner had met his burden of showing that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform.

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant can perform work other than past relevant work.

MAYES v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2021-02-21(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 his past relevant work.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that a claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience permit adjustment to a significant number of jobs in the national economy.

Edelen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-25(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ has the burden of demonstrating that there exists a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given his or her residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(c), 416.960(c) (2020); Jordan, 548 F.3d at 423.

At step five, § 416.920(g) places on the Commissioner the burden to show that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Bowen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-01(g)

At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy which the claimant can perform consistent with the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g); 416.920(g).

At the fifth step of the disability evaluation, when a claimant cannot return to past work, the ALJ considers whether the claimant's residual functional capacity and vocational characteristics permit adjustment to other work.

DELESTIENNE v. SAUL · filed 2021-12-02(a)(4)(v)

Whether an SSI claimant can meet the job requirements of a particular occupation is a decision ALJs make at the final step of the five-step evaluation they use for disability determinations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). ... If, in these first four steps, the claimant establishes that her RFC will not permit return to past work, the ALJ asks at step five whether her RFC and vocational characteristics (age, education, and work experience) allow “adjustment to other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). At this final step, the burden “shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform ‘other work,’” i.e., “jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy.”

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

Pagliuso v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-06(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ considers a claimant’s RFC and his “age, education, and work experience to see if [claimant] can make an adjustment to other work.” 20 C.F.R. §416.920(a)(4)(v).

At step five, when a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, § 416.920 requires showing that the claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy.

Cari v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-27(d)

If a claimant cannot perform his or her past relevant work, at step five of the disability evaluation process the ALJ must show there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy the claimant is able to do. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d), (e).

At Step 5 of the sequential evaluation, § 416.920(g) shifts the burden to the Commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than past relevant work.

WILLIAMS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2022-01-30(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 any 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, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) and (g) requires considering whether a claimant can adjust to other work based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience; ability to adjust means the claimant is not disabled, while inability means the claimant is disabled.

Paitsel v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-23(a)(4)(v) and (g)

At step five, the ALJ examines whether the claimant “can make an adjustment to other work[,]” considering [her] “[RFC,]... age, education, and work experience[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v) and (g), 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v) and (g); Hess, 931 F.3d at 202. That examination typically involves “one or more hypothetical questions posed by the ALJ to [a] vocational expert.” Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210, 218 (3d Cir. 1984). If the claimant can make an adjustment to other work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If she cannot, she is disabled.

At step five, the regulation requires the ALJ to consider the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience in deciding whether the claimant can adjust to other work.

Cooper v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-25(a)(4)(v)

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must consider 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).

At step five, the regulation requires considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work; failure to adjust results in a disability finding.

Ell v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-03(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). ... While a close call, the court finds that the number of jobs identified by the VE is sufficient to meet the Commissioner’s burden.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform work in the national economy; vocational expert testimony based on a supported residual functional capacity can establish that ability.

Lara v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-05(g)

The burden at step five of the sequential evaluation shifts to the Commissioner to show that, taking into account a Plaintiff’s age, education and vocational background, Plaintiff can perform substantial gainful work in the national economy. ... Having already thoroughly evaluated and rejected the assertions of error upon which Plaintiff objects to the ALJ’s RFC, this Court finds the ALJ properly credited the VE’s testimony that a person with Plaintiff’s RFC would not be disabled as defined by the guidelines.

At Step Five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform work in the national economy, but need not show that she could find a job.

Ford v. SSA · filed 2005-07-07(f)

The Commissioner must show that the claimant's limitations do not prevent her from engaging in substantial gainful work, but need not show that the claimant could actually find a job.

At step five, the ALJ must identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform despite their limitations.

Mendoza · filed 2025-12-16(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.

(c) treats an impairment as non-severe when it causes no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s 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.” ... “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) requires a severe impairment that significantly limits the ability to do basic work activities; an I.Q. score alone need not establish a severe intellectual impairment.

Griffith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-08-07(c)

Taken together, these various psychological opinions in combination with the extensive evidence of Griffith’s adaptive functioning provide substantial evidence for the ALJ to have concluded that Griffith did not have a severe mental impairment with regard to her intellectual functioning.

Section 416.920 establishes a five-step disability test, including a step that compares a claimant’s impairment with agency listings presumed severe enough to preclude gainful employment.

Keenan v. Barnhart · filed 2003-02-28(d)

Pursuant to this authority, the agency has promulgated regulations creating a five-step test to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. One of those steps involves comparison of the medical evidence regarding the claimant’s impairment to a listing of impairments presumed by the agency to be severe enough to preclude any gainful employment. Id. at § 416.920(d); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1.

Section 416.920 establishes a five-step sequence for evaluating SSI disability claims, progressing from substantial gainful activity and severe impairment through listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work.

Barringer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-02-24

The Commissioner uses a five-step process to evaluate SSI disability claims. ... Step One requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity (SGA). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). If so, she is not considered disabled. However, if she is not engaged in SGA, Step Two requires that the ALJ determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If the claimant is found to suffer from a severe impairment, Step Three requires that the ALJ determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P., Appendix 1, § 416.920(d). The claimant is presumptively disabled if the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment. ... If the claimant is not presumptively disabled, Step Four requires the ALJ to consider whether the claimant’s RFC precludes the performance of hei past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). At Step Five, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can do any other work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f).

Section 416.920 requires disability determinations to proceed through a sequential five-step analysis, with the agency bearing the burden at step five to show that the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.

Johnson v. Rhode Island Dept. of Human · filed 2006-12-15(a)(4)(i)-(v)

A sequential five-step analysis is set forth for disability determinations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The five steps are as follows: 1. Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity?

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires disability determinations to proceed through a sequential five-step analysis, addressing substantial gainful activity, severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Arnold v. Rhode Island Dept. of Human Serv. · filed 2008-08-05(a)(4)

Section § 416.920(a)(4) sets forth a sequential five-step analysis that must be employed when making a disability determination.

Section 416.920 uses a five-step sequential inquiry for disability claims; an affirmative answer advances the claimant or, at steps three and five, results in a disability finding.

Lopez v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-06

The Social Security Regulations provide a five-step sequential inquiry to determine whether a plaintiff is disabled: 1) is the plaintiff currently unemployed; 2) does the plaintiff have a severe impairment; 3) does the plaintiff have an impairment that meets or equals one of the impairments listed as disabling in the Commissioner’s regulations; 4) is the plaintiff unable to perform his past relevant work; and 5) is the plaintiff unable to perform any other work in the national economy? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; Simila, 573 F.3d at 512-13; Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351-52 (7th Cir.2005). An affirmative answer leads either to the next step or, on steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920; Briscoe, 425 F.3d at 352.

Section 416.920(a)(4) establishes a five-step process for determining disability, including evaluating past work at step four and available work in the national economy at step five.

Sawyer v. Berryhill · filed 2018-04-05(a)(4)

The Social Security Administration regulations provide a familiar five-step process to determine if an applicant is entitled to benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). In short, at step one the ALJ asks whether the applicant has been working; at step *667two, whether the applicant's medical impairments meet certain severity and duration requirements; at step three, whether these impairments are included in a list of impairments defined in the regulations; at step four, whether the applicant can perform his past work given the limitations imposed by the medical impairments; and at step five, whether the applicant can still perform work existing in the national economy.

Section 416.920 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, including a step-two assessment of severe impairments and a step-five assessment of whether the claimant can perform substantial gainful work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Galvan v. Saul · filed 2020-12-16(a), (a)(4)(ii), (c), (g)

A five-step sequential evaluation process is used to determine whether an adult claimant is disabled. Step one assesses whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, benefits are denied. Step two assesses whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment, or combination of impairments, which significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant does not, benefits are denied. ... Step five, the final step, assesses whether the claimant can perform other substantial gainful work—work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy—considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. If so, benefits are denied. If not, benefits are granted.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits basic work activities, and § 416.920(e) requires considering all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing residual functional capacity.

HURT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-26(c), (e)

The regulations provide that a severe impairment is one that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c); id. § 404.1520(c). ... In considering a claimant’s RFC, the Commissioner must consider “all the relevant medical and other evidence” in the claimant’s record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). ... The 2019 ALJ Decision at issue in the instant action again fails to properly evaluate (1) whether Plaintiff’s obesity is a severe impairment, and (2) how Plaintiff’s obesity impacts his residual functional capacity. This failure is not only at odds with the prior Appeals Council remands, but also contravenes what is required by law.

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to use a five-step framework to determine whether a claimant is disabled.

Sepulveda v. Saul · filed 2021-03-31(a)(4)

In deciding whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner is required by the Social Security regulations to use the five-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) and described on page 13, above.

Section 416.920(a) establishes a five-step process for determining disability, including whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, has a severe impairment, and meets or equals a listed impairment.

Caloni v. Saul · filed 2021-07-19(a)

The Social Security Administration has established a five-step process for determining whether a person is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a); Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009). Steps one through three require the claimant to prove (1) he is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, (2) he suffers from a severe impairment, and (3) his disability meets or equals a listed impairment.

Section 416.920 requires a five-step disability determination: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, listed impairment, past relevant work, and other work considering residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-09(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)

To determine if a claimant has sustained a disability within the meaning of the Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process: 1) The ALJ first determines whether the claimant is currently engaged in SGA. See C.F.R. §§ 416.920(b), 416.972. If so, the claimant is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). 2) If the claimant is not engaged in SGA, the ALJ determines if the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If not, the claimant is not disabled. See id. 3) If the claimant has a severe impairment, the ALJ determines if the impairment meets or equals an impairment found in the appendix to the regulations (the "Listings"). If so, the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). 4) If the impairment does not meet the requirements of the Listings, the ALJ determines if the claimant can do his past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e), (f). If so, the claimant is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). 5) If the claimant cannot perform his past relevant work, the ALJ determines if he can perform other work, in light of his RFC, age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f), (g). If so, then he is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). A claimant is only entitled to receive benefits if he cannot perform any alternative gainful activity. See id.

Section 416.920 requires disability to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process before the agency separately evaluates whether substance use materially contributes to disability.

Moniz v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-29(a)

A five-step evaluation determines whether a claimant is disabled. ... As explained above, the ALJ was required to first conduct the five-step sequential disability evaluation without separating out the impact of Plaintiff’s alcohol and cannabis use. If after the initial five-step analysis, the ALJ deemed Plaintiff disabled, then the ALJ was to determine whether drug or alcohol use was a material factor contributing to the disability.

Section 416.920 establishes a five-step sequential process for determining whether an individual is disabled.

Hoffman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-12

The Commissioner has established a five-step evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The Supreme Court has recognized the validity of this sequential evaluation process. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42, 107 S. Ct. 2287 (1987). The five-step process is as follows: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) based on a ‘residual functional capacity’ assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Section 416.920 establishes a five-step process for determining whether an individual is disabled under the Social Security Act, considering substantial gainful activity, severe impairments, listed impairments, residual functional capacity and past work, and available jobs in the national economy.

Daruszka v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-05

The Commissioner has established a five-step evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. ... The five-step process is as follows: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) based on a ‘residual functional capacity’ assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Section 416.920 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential evaluation to determine disability, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner at step five.

Rivero-Rosado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-15

To be awarded disability benefits, the SSA requires that one have the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a). An ALJ makes this determination through a five-step evaluation process, where the burden rests on the plaintiff for the first four steps. Only after all four steps are satisfied does the burden then shift to the commissioner for the fifth and final step. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920.

Section 416.920(a)(4) establishes a five-step framework for determining whether a claimant is disabled and eligible for Social Security benefits.

Sanders v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-23(a)(4)

The Social Security Administration uses a five-step framework to determine whether a claimant meets the necessary conditions to receive Social Security benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, and if the claimant fails at any of these steps, consideration of any subsequent step or steps is unnecessary. Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988) (“If a determination can be made at any of the steps that a claimant is or is not disabled, evaluation under a subsequent step is not necessary.”). The Commissioner bears the burden of proof at step five. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987).

Section 416.920 provides a five-step analysis for determining disability.

Tester v. Delia · filed 2014-10-21

In conclusion, we hold that the superior court properly concluded that DHHS correctly utilized the five-step analysis for disability determinations under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 and that the final agency decision concluding that petitioner is not disabled is based upon substantial evidence in the record.

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process addressing work activity, impairment severity, listed impairments, past relevant work, and other work in the national economy.

Wagner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-19

The Commissioner has established a five-step evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The Supreme Court has recognized the validity of this sequential evaluation process. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42, 107 S. Ct. 2287 (1987). The five-step process is as follows: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) based on a ‘residual functional capacity’ assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Section 416.920(a) requires SSI disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, determining substantial gainful activity, severity, listing equivalence, past work capacity, and ability to adjust to other work.

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

To evaluate a claim for SSI benefits, the Social Security Administration follows a five-step sequential evaluation process. Id. § 416.920(a)(1). First, it must be determined whether the claimant is currently doing any substantial gainful activity. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). If he is currently doing any substantial gainful activity, then his claim is denied. Id. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step, where the evaluator determines whether the claimant has any severe impairment. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If he does not have a severe impairment, then the claim is denied. If the evaluator determines the claimant has a severe impairment, the inquiry proceeds to the third step, where the evaluator determines whether any of the claimant’s impairments is equivalent to one of the listed impairments. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant has any of the listed impairments, he is considered disabled, and the inquiry ceases. Id. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the fourth step, where the evaluator determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and whether the claimant can return to his past relevant work. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can return to work, he is not disabled, and the inquiry ceases. Id. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the fifth and final step, where the evaluator determines whether the claimant can adjust to any other substantial gainful work available in the national economy. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant can adjust to other work, then he is not disabled. Id. If he is unable to adjust to other work, he is disabled, and is eligible for benefits. Id.