20 C.F.R. § 416.920

Section 416.920(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities to be severe, while step two requires only a de minimis showing beyond the mere presence of a condition.

Rathbun v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-11(c)

To be “severe,” an impairment or combination of impairments must “significantly limit[] [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities . . . .” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). While step two requires only “a ‘de minimis’ showing of impairment, . . . . the claimant must show more than the mere presence of a condition or ailment.”

At step two, the disability determination must assess the severity of medically determinable impairments using medical evidence.

Grisham v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-14(a)

Step two findings must be based upon medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). The ALJ may draw inferences about the severity of an impairment based on the degree of treatment the claimant sought.

At step two, § 416.920 requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment, but failure to identify an additional impairment is harmless when the ALJ finds another severe impairment and proceeds.

Valero v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-21(a)(4)(ii), (c)

The ALJ considers the “medical severity” of a claimant’s impairments at step two of the sequential evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... Since the ALJ found Claimant had at least one severe impairment and proceeded to the subsequent steps of his analysis, any failure in identifying additional medically determinable impairments at step two does not constitute reversible error.

Section 416.920 treats step two as a severity screen: any impairment that significantly limits basic work activities satisfies step two, after which the ALJ must consider all impairments in assessing residual functional capacity.

Watkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-07(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, an ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... This inquiry “acts as a filter in that the finding of any severe impairment ... is enough to satisfy the requirement of step two and allow the ALJ to proceed to step three.” ... If any impairment or combination of impairments qualifies as “severe,” step two is satisfied and the claim advances to step three. ... Thus, even if the ALJ erred in not finding additional impairments severe, the error is harmless because the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments when assessing the RFC.

At step two, the ALJ determines whether an impairment is medically determinable and whether it is severe, as a threshold screening inquiry.

Negron v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-12(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; this step is essentially a threshold test. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, § 416.920 requires a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; the court remanded because the ALJ’s finding that the claimant’s mental impairments were non-severe was not supported by substantial evidence.

Lilly v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-13(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the disability analysis, the ALJ determines if a claimant’s impairments are severe and have lasted or are expected to last for at least twelve months. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c); 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 416.909. To show an impairment is severe, a claimant must show she has (1) a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, (2) which significantly limits her physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, without regard to age, education, or work experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c); 404.1521(a); 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c); 416.921(a). Basic work activities are those “abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(b). If the claimant does not have a severe medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, then she is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... The ALJ opined that the above cited records evidenced “minimal treatment” with “many normal exam findings,” supporting the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s mental health symptoms were non-severe. However, the Court finds that the substantial evidence in the record as a whole does not sustain this conclusion. ... The Court does not find that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s opinion. While the ALJ did discuss Plaintiff’s mental health issues when formulating the RFC, the ALJ relied on records which do not appear to be supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Therefore, the Court will remand this matter to the Commissioner to more fully evaluate and supplement as necessary the medical and nonmedical evidence of record relating to the severity of Plaintiff’s mental health impairments and her RFC.

At step two, § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to consider the severity of the claimant’s impairments, and an erroneous non-severity finding may be harmless if the ALJ proceeds to later steps and considers all impairments in the RFC.

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

At step two in the sequential analysis of disability, an ALJ must consider the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If an ALJ finds at least one severe impairment at step two, proceeds to the remaining steps, and considers all severe and non-severe impairments in evaluating an RFC, then an error in finding an impairment non-severe at step two may be harmless.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, and a step-two omission is harmless when step two is resolved favorably and the ALJ considers the condition later.

Paonessa v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-29(c)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has an impairment that is both medically determinable and severe. An impairment is severe if it “significantly limit[s]” the claimant’s ability to do both basic work activities, which are defined as “abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c); SSR 85-28, available at 1985 WL 56856. ... The step two inquiry is a “de minimus screening device to dispose of groundless claims.” Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 153-54. Omissions at step two are harmless error if step two is decided in the claimant’s favor and the nonsevere conditions are considered by the ALJ. Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2017).

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, and the ALJ must consider all the evidence in making that determination.

(SS) Ali v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-12(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines which of claimant’s alleged impairments are “severe” within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits” a claimant’s “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. An ALJ must consider all the evidence at step two to determine whether a medically determinable impairment significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. ... The ALJ’s decision not to deem Plaintiff’s lumbar degenerative disc disease and obesity to be severe impairments at step two is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments, with severity turning on whether the impairment significantly limits basic work activities.

Bossio-Haines v. O'Malley · filed 2023-10-17(a)(4)(ii)

At Step Two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment” or “a combination of impairments that is severe,” which has lasted or is expected to last for at least twelve months. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.909; 416.920(a)(4)(ii). “An impairment is not severe if it amounts only to a slight abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007).

At step two, § 416.920 requires assessing impairment severity and proceeding to step three when an impairment or combination significantly limits basic work activities.

Decker v. O'Malley · filed 2023-12-12(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers the severity of the claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant suffers from “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [his or her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” the analysis proceeds to step three. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). Step two is “a de minimis screening device [used] to dispose of groundless claims.” ... “Thus, applying our normal standard of review to the requirements of step two, [the Court] must determine whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the medical evidence clearly established that [Plaintiff] did not have a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.” ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings with respect to these complaints.

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a medically determinable severe impairment or combination of severe impairments, considering the combined effect of all impairments.

Pena v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-14(c)

At step two of a disability analysis, the ALJ determines 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) (2022). The ALJ must consider each of the claimant’s impairments and their combined effect on the claimant’s ability to function, even if those impairments alone would not be considered severe.

At step two, § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires evaluating whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment, which under § 416.920(c) significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

SHELLINGTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-12-28(a)(4)(ii), (c)

When evaluating a claimant’s disability, at step-two, the [ALJ] determines if the claimant has shown that he or she suffers a “severe medically terminable physical or mental impairment… or a combination of impairments that is severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is defined as an impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

At step two, § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to consider the medical severity of each medically determinable impairment.

WILLIAMS v. KIJAKAZI, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2024-01-08(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ is required to consider the medical severity of any medically determinable impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). To be medically determinable, an “impairment(s) must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that can he shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Id. § 404.1521.

At step two, § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ to consider the medical severity of every medically determinable impairment.

MARKWARDT v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-01-17(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ is required to consider the medical severity of any medically determinable impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is “severe” where it significantly limits the claimant's ability to perform “basic work activities.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), (c), 416.920(a), (c); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522, 416.922. To meet the durational requirement, the severe impairment “must have lasted or must be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 416.909.

Section 416.920(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities before it is considered severe at step two.

Cope v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-24(c)

After a medically determinable impairment is established, the ALJ must determine whether the impairment is “severe;” i.e., one that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... The ALJ reasonably relied on substantial evidence to find depression medically determinable but not severe at step two.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the agency to consider the severity of an individual's impairments at the second step of the five-step sequential disability evaluation.

Petruno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-08(a)(4)(ii)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii), the severity of an individual’s impairments is considered at the second step of the five-step sequential evaluation process used by the agency to determine whether a claimant is disabled.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires a claimant to show a severe impairment at step two, but an erroneous severity finding does not require reversal when the ALJ considers all impairments in the later RFC analysis.

Pierce v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-09(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine if a claimant suffers from a severe impairment. ... A severe impairment is a medically determinable impairment that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” ... A court may find that an error at step two, in failing to find a particular impairment severe, does not require reversal where the ALJ finds other severe impairments and considers all of the claimant’s impairments, severe and non-severe, in the subsequent analysis. ... Thus, even if the ALJ erred in concluding that Plaintiff’s headaches and mental impairments were not severe impairments at step two, such error was harmless because the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff's impairments, severe and non-severe, when formulating the RFC.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires consideration of medical severity at step two, and § 416.920(c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform work activities.

Lewis v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-12(c), (a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ considers the “medical severity” of a claimant’s impairments at step two of the sequential evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is “severe” if it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). A claimant who does not have a severe medically determinable impairment, or a combination of impairments that is severe, is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, § 416.920(c) requires the ALJ to determine whether an impairment significantly limits basic work activities, and the court held that the ALJ could not find the claimant’s strokes nonsevere without addressing evidence of continuing cognitive effects.

Sardina v. Kijakazki · filed 2024-03-15(c)

At step two, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment—or combination of impairments—that is “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). To qualify as “severe,” the impairment must significantly limit the claimant’s “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c), and “must have lasted or be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months” or be expected to result in death. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 416.909; see also Titles II & XVI: Med. Impairments That Are Not Severe, SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856 (S.S.A. 1985) (hereinafter “SSR 85-28”). ... Here, ... Because the ALJ relied on some treatment notations supporting his conclusion that Claimant recovered fully within twelve months without stating the other treatment notations that potentially detract from this conclusion were considered, the Court cannot conclude substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination Claimant fully recovered from his strokes within twelve months and therefore his strokes were not a severe impairment at step two.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(2) requires the ALJ, at step two, to determine whether an impairment is severe before proceeding with the sequential evaluation.

Rivera v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-25(a)(4)(2)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether an impairment is severe or not. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(2). This analysis entails: determining whether the claimant has any medically determinable mental impairments; rating the degree of functional limitation resulting from the mental impairment(s) in four broad functional areas; determining the severity of the mental impairment(s); and then if any of the impairments is severe, proceeding in the sequential evaluation process.

At step two, an impairment is non-severe only if it is a slight abnormality with such a minimal effect that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual's ability to work, regardless of age, education, or work experience.

Williams v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-04-12(c)

The Brady standard articulates the same requirements set forth for the step-two inquiry as stated in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) & 416.920(c). See Brady, 724 F.2d at 920 (“An impairment can be considered as not severe only if it is a slight abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience.”).

At step two, the claimant must show a severe medically determinable impairment that meets the duration requirement; an impairment is severe when it significantly limits the ability to perform basic work activities.

Fisher v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-24(a)(4)(ii), (c)

Step two proceeds in two steps. After the Commissioner first “establish[es] that [the claimant has] a medically determinable impairment(s),” they must next “determine whether [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is severe.” Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) (noting that at the second step of the sequential evaluation process, “we consider the medical severity of your impairment(s)”). ... “If [the claimant does] not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement in § 416.909, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, [the Commissioner] will find that [the claimant is] not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii); ... Plaintiff has the burden to present evidence sufficient to establish a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c); ... The ALJ did not err by finding that plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome was not a severe impairment at step two. As noted above, plaintiff has the burden of proof at step two to show both the severity and duration of her alleged impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) treats step two as a threshold severity screen, and an omission is harmless when other impairments make step two favorable and the omitted impairment's effects are considered later.

(SS) Kessler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-01(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, plaintiff has the burden of providing medical evidence of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings that show that his or her impairments are severe and are expected to last for a continuous period of twelve months. ... “The step-two inquiry is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims.” ... A finding that an impairment is not “severe” at Step Two is generally harmless if (1) the ALJ finds that other impairments are severe, (2) Step Two is therefore resolved in plaintiff's favor, and (3) the limiting effects of the non-severe impairment are then considered throughout the remainder of the sequential evaluation. ... Here, any error at Step Two was harmless. ... Since Step Two turned in favor of the plaintiff, and the ALJ considered the non-severe impairments throughout the remainder of the evaluation, the undersigned finds any error at Step Two to be harmless error.

Section 416.920(c) requires a claimant at step two to show a severe impairment or combination of impairments that causes more than minimal limitations in the ability to perform work-related functions; the severity screen is de minimis.

Coleman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-20(c)

“At step two of the disability analysis, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has an impairment, or combination of impairments, that is ‘severe’ within the meaning of the Act, in that it imposes significant restrictions on the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.” ... “The step-two severity requirement “is de minimis and is meant only to screen out the weakest of claims.” ... “Rather, to be considered severe, an impairment or combination of impairments must cause more than minimal limitations in [a claimant’s] ability to perform work-related functions.”

At step two, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits basic work activities and has lasted or is expected to last at least twelve months.

Truxel v. Social Security · filed 2024-05-28(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At Step Two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment,” or “a combination of impairments that is severe,” that lasted or is expected to last for at least twelve months. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.909; 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, an impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

(SS) McCormick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-27(c)

“[a]n impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] . . . ability to do basic work activities.” Id. at 1290 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) & 404.1521(a)). See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 416.921(a). ... Thus, when considering the foregoing evidence and the record as a whole (and not just those portions on which the ALJ relies), it is enough to meet the de minimis standard posed at step two and to classify Plaintiff’s mental impairments as severe.

At step two, § 416.920(c) requires a claimant to show that an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, and more than the mere presence of a condition is required.

Dubois v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2024-07-22(c)

At step two, a claimant bears the burden to demonstrate the existence of an impairment or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [his] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). While step two requires only “de minimis” proof of impairment, the claimant must show more than the mere presence of a condition or ailment.

At step two, § 416.920(c) requires a severe impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

GOETKE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-07-24(c)

Instead, the relevant question at step two is not how many severe or nonsevere impairments exist, but whether the claimant has at least one severe impairment that justifies proceeding to the next step of the sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) (“If you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled.”).

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

Schauble v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-30(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the Commissioner must determine “whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.” See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment or combination of impairments is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe when it significantly limits basic work activities; an impairment causing only a slight abnormality or minimal effect on work is not severe.

Hagins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-26(c)

At Step Two, an impairment is deemed “severe” if it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). A severe impairment is “‘any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant’s] ability to do basic work.’” Miller v. Berryhill, No. 16CV6467, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153578, at *20 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). An impairment or combination of impairments is found to be “not severe” when medical evidence establishes only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities which would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.

Section 416.920(c) treats step two as a de minimis screen: an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits basic work activities, and any error in classifying one impairment is harmless when another impairment satisfies the threshold.

FRISCO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-08-27(c)

At step two, an ALJ determines whether the plaintiff has a “severe impairment” or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). “The step-two inquiry is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims.” Newell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 347 F.3d 541, 546 (3d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). ... Accordingly, even if the ALJ erred in not finding Plaintiff’s mental impairments severe at step two, any such error at step two was harmless based on this record.

At step two, § 416.920(c) requires a claimant to show a severe impairment or combination of impairments that limits basic work activities, applying a de minimis standard intended to screen out only the weakest cases.

Degraff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-21(c)

Although plaintiff bears the burden of proof at step two, it is not a heavy burden; the standard for a finding of severity under step two of the sequential analysis is de minimis and is intended only to screen out the very weakest cases.

Section 416.920(a) requires the ALJ to use the sequential evaluation process, including determining at step two whether medically determinable impairments are severe based on medical evidence.

Cockreham v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-13(a)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has any medically determinable impairments that are “severe.” ... Step two findings must be based upon medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a).

At step two, the agency considers the medical severity of the claimant's impairment(s) and finds the claimant not disabled if no severe impairment or combination meets the duration requirement.

Jud v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-17(a)(4)(ii)

“Step two proceeds in two steps. After the Commissioner first “establish[es] that [the claimant has] a medically determinable impairment(s),” he must then “determine whether [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is severe.” Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) (noting that at the second step of the sequential evaluation process, “we consider the medical severity of your impairment(s)”). ... “If [the claimant does] not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement in § 416.909, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, [the Commissioner] will find that [the claimant is] not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii); ... The ALJ did not err by finding that plaintiff’s PTSD was non-severe at step two because plaintiff failed to carry his burden to demonstrate the condition met the 12-month durational requirement.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe at Step Two when it significantly limits basic work activities and excludes impairments causing no more than a minimal effect on the ability to work.

Young v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-24(c)

At Step Two, an impairment is deemed “severe” if it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). An impairment or combination of impairments is found to be “not severe” when medical evidence establishes only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities which would have no more than a minimal effect on a claimant’s ability to work.

Section 416.920(c) requires the ALJ to determine at step two whether an impairment is severe, meaning it significantly limits the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities; an omission is harmless when the ALJ considers the impairment's effects later in the sequential analysis.

Brokaw v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-26(c)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has an impairment that is both medically determinable and severe. ... An impairment is “not severe” if it does not “significantly limit” a claimant’s ability to conduct basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); ... Omissions at step two are harmless if the ALJ subsequently considered the effects of the impairments omitted at step two. ... Even though the ALJ mischaracterized the record in his analysis at step two, this error is harmless because the ALJ found at least one severe impairment at step two and proceeded to consider plaintiff’s fibromyalgia, migraine headaches, and chronic fatigue syndrome in determining her RFC. ... In sum, while the ALJ’s step two analysis included mischaracterizations of the medical record, this error is harmless because the ALJ considered plaintiff’s nonsevere impairments at the subsequent steps of the sequential analysis.

An error in assessing impairment severity at step two is harmless when step two was resolved in the claimant’s favor.

(SS) Alarcon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-15(c)

Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that the ALJ erred in considering the severity of impairments at step two, any error would be harmless because step two was resolved in Plaintiff’s favor.

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment; an impairment that causes no more than minimal limitation in basic work activities is generally not severe.

Neela v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-30(a)(4)(ii)

“At step two of the disability analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has any ‘severe medically determinable’ impairments.” Ferguson v. O’Malley, 95 F.4th 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii)). “A ‘severe impairment’ is one that significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c)). ... Accordingly, because there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff possessed at most “mild” limitations in each of the four Paragraph B categories, the ALJ did not commit reversible error in concluding that Plaintiff’s mental impairments were not severe.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; the court applied that standard and upheld the treatment of interstitial cystitis as non-severe while recognizing it in the RFC.

Lawson-Schojan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-23(c)

At Step Two, an impairment is deemed “severe” if it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. ... This Court finds that Plaintiff had not produced objective evidence of limitations stemming from IC. Moreover, this Court finds that the ALJ implicitly factored Plaintiff’s IC in the RFC because its restrictions included a schedule of regular breaks every two hours. ... Furthermore, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s IC in establishing her residual functional capacity.

At step two, a medically determinable impairment is severe only if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Kabroo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-12(c)

Plaintiff’s reports of improvement and frequent denial of symptoms, the myriad normal examination findings, and the findings made by the state agency experts all support the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments did not significantly limit his ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 416.922. The Court will not overturn the ALJ”s determination on this basis.

At step two, § 416.920 requires the adjudicator to determine whether an established impairment is severe because it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

LaRose v. OMalley · filed 2024-12-02(a)(4)(ii) and (c)

As discussed above, once an impairment is considered an MDI, the ALJ is then required to consider whether the impairment is “severe,” or, in other words, whether it “significantly limits” the claimant’s “ability to do basic work activities.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.921(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3; see also Forrette, 2020 WL 5803166, at *10; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c), 416.920(a)(4)(ii) and (c). ... Here, given (1) the existence of new evidence, (2) the Court’s above determination that the ALJ erred in his duration finding, and (3) the related remand for the ALJ to make explicit findings regarding whether the back/rib impairment constitutes an MDI, the Court concludes that the ALJ must also revisit his step two severity findings on remand. In reevaluating severity on remand, the ALJ is required to apply the controlling law, as described above, and to complete the necessary two-step evaluation, which requires the ALJ to first assess whether Plaintiff’s physical impairments constitute an MDI and to then evaluate the severity of the impairments.

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

Skyla L. v. Colvin · filed 2024-12-18(c)

First, the Court agrees that the ALJ erred at Step 2 by not finding that Plaintiff’s documented history of migraine headaches was a severe impairment. An impairment is “severe” at Sept 2 if it “significantly limits[s]” a claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). The Commissioner has adopted a “slight abnormality” standard which provides that an impairment is “non-severe” when the medical evidence establishes only a slight abnormality that has “no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.” SSR 85-28.

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

Larsen v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-04(c)

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

Section 416.920(c) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the ability to do basic work activities; once any impairment meets that severity threshold, an error finding another impairment non-severe is harmless.

GAYDOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-01-31(c)

At step two, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). “The step-two inquiry is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims.” Newell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 347 F.3d 541, 546 (3d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). However, “[s]o long as the ALJ rules in Plaintiff’s favor by finding that any single impairment meets the severity threshold required at step two, any error the ALJ made in this determination was harmless.”

Section 416.920(c) requires a step-two finding of severity only when an impairment significantly limits basic work activities; otherwise, the claimant is found not disabled.

(SS) Regina Rines v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-27(c)

If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the analysis proceeds to step two. At this step, the Commissioner considers the severity of the claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant suffers from “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [his or her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” the analysis proceeds to step three. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If the claimant’s impairment does not satisfy this severity threshold, however, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. (Id.).

At step two, the ALJ must consider the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments.

Tolen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-10(a)(4)(ii)

At step two of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must “consider the medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, § 416.920(c) requires an impairment to significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities to be considered severe.

Sadhu v. Commissioner of Social Secuity · filed 2025-03-12(c)

The five-step analysis proceeds as follows. First, the claimant must not be engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Second, the claimant must have a “severe” impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). To be considered severe, a medical impairment must significantly limit physical or mental ability to do basic work activities and must be of twelve months duration or be expected to last for at least twelve months. (Id.) ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err with respect to Plaintiff’s mental impairment.

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is severe.

Nolan v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-19(a)(4)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is severe. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). ... As an initial matter, any alleged error by the ALJ in classifying Plaintiff’s mental impairments as non-severe cannot be a basis for reversal because the ALJ resolved step two in Plaintiff’s favor.

At step two, § 416.920(c) treats an impairment as severe only when it significantly limits basic work activities; a slight abnormality with no more than a minimal effect is not severe.

(SS) Scales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-18(c)

At step two of the five-step sequential evaluation, the ALJ is required to determine whether a plaintiff has a “severe” medical impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). An impairment, or combination of impairments, can be found not severe if the evidence establishes only a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. See SSR 85–28, 1985 WL 56856 (Jan. 1, 1985); see also Yuckert v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 303, 306 (9th Cir.1988) (adopting SSR 85–28). For an impairment to be “severe” it must significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

At step two, the ALJ evaluates the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments.

Putman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-31(a)(4)(ii)

An ALJ evaluates the “medical severity” of a claimant’s impairments at Step Two of the sequential evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). Before determining whether an impairment is “severe,” the ALJ must first determine whether the impairment is medically determinable.

At step two, the Commissioner considers the severity of the claimant’s impairment, and an alleged impairment must be adequately considered rather than omitted from the step-two analysis.

Dreyer v. Dudek · filed 2025-04-07(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers the severity of the claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... As for Plaintiff’s right hand impairments, the Court finds the ALJ committed error. The ALJ mentions other impairments that have occurred sporadically such as right hand cellulitis and hernia but does not mention or explicitly address Plaintiff’s reported limitations and pain in using both hands or his carpal tunnel syndrome at step two. ... As the Court explains below, the ALJ did not properly discount Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony, therefore, the Court finds the ALJ did not adequately consider Plaintiff’s right hand impairments. This error was not harmless as the RFC’s limitations on Plaintiff’s manipulative functioning to frequent was in part based on the ALJ discrediting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ will properly consider Plaintiff’s right hand impairments including his carpal tunnel.

At step two of the disability evaluation, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; otherwise the claimant is found not disabled.

(SS) Bouttirath v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-25(c)

At this step, the Commissioner considers the severity of the claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant suffers from “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [his or her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” the analysis proceeds to step three. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If the claimant’s impairment does not satisfy this severity threshold, however, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. (Id.). ... The Court, considering the record as a whole, finds that the ALJ relied on substantial evidence sufficient to support her reasonable conclusions and, therefore, did not fail to provide a proper basis for the non-severe disability determinations regarding Plaintiff’s psychological impairments. ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in excluding related non-exertional limitations at step four and five.

Section 416.920(a) places the severity determination at step two, requiring the ALJ to decide whether a medically determinable impairment is severe because it more than minimally limits the claimant’s ability to work.

Rand v. Dudek · filed 2025-04-09(a)

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

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

(SS)Guevara v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-15(c)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s mental impairments were not severe. ... The key inquiry is not whether the claimant has a diagnosis for a mental impairment, but rather whether there are findings by the medical sources to support that the mental impairment is “severe” under the paragraph B criteria. ... Here, the records Plaintiff cites establish her own occasional complaints of anxiety and depression without any evidence from medical sources that these impairments impacted her basic work abilities as required to establish they were severe.

At Step Two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Haas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-27(c)

As previously discussed, at Step Two of the sequential evaluation process, a claimant must prove that he has an impairment that is so severe that it “significantly limits [his] physical and mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c); Keyser v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 648 F.3d 721, 725 (9th Cir. 2011); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.922(a) (“An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”).

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment, and any severe impairment allows the evaluation to proceed to step three while the claimant’s remaining limitations are considered in the RFC.

Slackta v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2025-06-25(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, an ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... This inquiry “acts as a filter in that the finding of any severe impairment ... is enough to satisfy the requirement of step two and allow the ALJ to proceed to step three.” ... With step two satisfied, the issue then becomes whether the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments in assessing the RFC.

At step two, the Commissioner evaluates the medical severity of a claimant's impairment and finds the claimant not disabled if there is no severe impairment or combination of impairments meeting the duration requirement.

Johnstone v. O'Malley · filed 2025-07-29

“At the second step, we consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). If you do not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement in § 416.909, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are not disabled.”

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to be evaluated through sequential steps; at step two, an impairment must significantly limit basic work abilities and meet the duration requirement, and at step four the ALJ assesses residual functional capacity from the record.

Corhn v. Colvin · filed 2025-08-05(c), (e)

Second, the claimant must have a “severe” impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). To be considered severe, a medical impairment must significantly limit physical or mental ability to do basic work activities and must be of twelve months duration or be expected to last for at least twelve months. (Id.) ... Fourth, if the claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ will assess and make a finding about the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) based on all relevant medical and other evidence in the claimant’s case record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).

At step two of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ determines whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment and, if so, whether it is severe based on whether it significantly limits basic work activities.

Combs v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-29(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. ... This involves a two-step process: 1) determining whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment, and 2) if so, determining whether the impairment is severe. ... 31 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... 32 Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the ALJ, at step two of the disability evaluation, to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment; the threshold is low and the ALJ must consider the claimant’s subjective symptoms.

Barker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-03(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). An impairment is severe if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities for at least 12 months. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.909; 416.920(a)(4)(ii). Importantly, “the step-two severity threshold is not high.” Toledo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2024 WL 3029251, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 17, 2024). This step requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective symptoms and serves as a de minimis screening device to filter out groundless claims. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290 (citing SSR 88-13; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(2)).

Section 416.920(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step process, including a step-two determination of whether the claimant has a severe impairment; an erroneous step-two severity finding is harmless when the ALJ identifies other severe impairments and proceeds to the later steps.

Reyes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-08(a)(4)(ii)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). ... At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental impairment. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... Given these principles, Plaintiff is not entitled to reversal based on his argument that the ALJ should have characterized his mental/cognitive impairments as severe during step two. Any error in that determination was harmless because the ALJ determined that some of Plaintiff’s other impairments were severe and thus proceeded to the later steps of the disability analysis.

Section 416.920 requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment and, if so, whether it is severe, meaning it has more than a minimal effect on the ability to work.

West v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-10(a)(4)(ii), (c)

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

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the SSA, at step two of the sequential evaluation, to assess whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments.

Manosh v. O' Malley · filed 2025-09-23(a)(4)(ii)

At step two in the sequential evaluation, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) considers the medical severity of the claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). To be found disabled, a disability claimant must have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that is severe. Id.

At step two, an impairment is severe when it significantly limits basic work activities, and the sequential evaluation must continue unless the evidence clearly establishes that the impairment is non-severe.

Misak v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-16(c)

At this step, the Commissioner considers the severity of the claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant suffers from “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [his or her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” the analysis proceeds to step three. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If the claimant’s impairment does not satisfy this severity threshold, however, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. Id. ... At step two, Plaintiff need not establish “consistent evidence” of her impairments with urinary incontinence for the ALJ to proceed to the next step of the sequential evaluation of her claims. Indeed, Plaintiff need only satisfy the de minimis standard to find her claims meritorious at this stage of the sequential evaluation. ... Because this evidence shows Plaintiff’s urinary incontinence may have more than a minimal effect on her ability to work, the ALJ therefore erred in finding that the impairment non-severe.

At step two, an ALJ must determine whether a medically determinable impairment significantly limits basic work activities; failure to find an impairment severe is not itself error, but the impairment's effects must be adequately considered in the disability determination and RFC.

Conrad · filed 2025-10-17(c)

After a medically determinable impairment is established, the ALJ must determine whether the impairment is “severe;” i.e., one that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... The Court does not find that the ALJ erred by failing to find headaches are a severe impairment, only that the ALJ’s consideration of the headache evidence is insufficiently addressed. ... However, as discussed above, it is not clear that the ALJ adequately considered Plaintiff’s headaches throughout the decision such that the effect of Plaintiff’s headaches on his functioning, if any, was included in the RFC.

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

Scott · filed 2025-11-25(c)

At step two, Plaintiff bears the burden of showing the existence of an impairment or combination of impairments which “significantly limits [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires an ALJ to decide at step two whether a medically determinable impairment is severe, and subsection (c) defines a severe impairment as one that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Woods · filed 2026-01-13(a)(4)(ii), (c)

If an impairment is medically determinable, an ALJ must then determine whether it is severe. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A “severe impairment” is defined as “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If a claimant has at least one severe MDI, an ALJ must consider the limiting effects of all a claimant’s MDIs, severe and not, when formulating a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 416.923.

At step two, the regulation requires the ALJ to assess the severity of the claimant’s impairments.

Hood · filed 2026-03-18(c)

An ALJ must consider the severity of the claimant’s impairments at step two. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... Here, the ALJ did not fail to consider Plaintiff’s cardiac impairments at step two, as he specifically acknowledged hypertension among her severe impairments. Tr. at 25.

At step two, an impairment is severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities; any severe impairment satisfies step two and permits the evaluation to proceed.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-11(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, an ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe “if it does not significantly limit [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522(a), 416.922(a). In other words, a severe impairment is an impairment or combination thereof that significantly limits a claimant’s abilities to perform basic work activities. See SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, *4 n.1; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1522(a), 416.920(c), 416.922(a).

At step two, § 416.920 requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment; finding any severe impairment permits the claim to proceed to step three, while all impairments must still be considered in assessing residual functional capacity.

Faiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-11(a)(4)(ii)

At step two, an ALJ considers the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe “if it does not significantly limit [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522(a), 416.922(a). ... With this standard in mind, even if the ALJ should have characterized Plaintiff’s mental impairments as severe, any error is harmless because the ALJ characterized other impairments – degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, migraines, and obesity – as severe. (Tr. 13). The ALJ then advanced to step three of the sequential evaluation. See Ball, 714 F. App’x at 993. With step two satisfied, the issue then becomes whether the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments in assessing the RFC. She did.

At Step Two, an ALJ may find an impairment non-severe when substantial evidence shows no effect on the claimant’s ability to function.

Claire C. v. Bisignano · filed 2026-04-30(a)(4)(ii)

The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s Step-Two finding that rosacea with vision complications was non-severe during the period in issue.

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits basic work activities and lasts twelve months.

Hyde v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-06(a)(4)(ii)

A severe impairment is one that significantly limits a claimant’s basic work activities and lasts for twelve months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.909, 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 416.922(a). The ALJ specifically addressed Plaintiff’s spinal and mental ... impairments and found that they did not meet this standard.

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

(SS) Sutton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-08(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ determines which of Plaintiff’s alleged impairments are “severe” within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). ... While Plaintiff may disagree with the inferences drawn by the ALJ from the evidence and may offer an alternative interpretation of it, the Court finds that ALJ’s step two findings are reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 416.920 requires the ALJ to assess impairment severity at step two; an erroneous finding can be harmful when the impairment is also omitted from the residual functional capacity assessment.

Hankton v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-24(a)(4)(ii)

The Court agrees with plaintiff that the ALJ erred at step two, and that the error was not harmless.

Section 416.920 permits denial at the second step only when an impairment is so slight that it would not be expected to interfere with work, regardless of the claimant’s age, education, or work experience.

Farris v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1985-09-18(c)

We therefore agree with the Eleventh Circuit’s view in Brady that in order to ensure *90consistency with statutory disability standards, an impairment can be considered as not severe, and the application rejected at the second stage of the sequential evaluation process, only if the impairment is a “slight abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education and work experience.” 724 F.2d at 920.

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

Brindamour v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-30(c)

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

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

Sparks v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-29(c)

The Court agrees that the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s Meniere’s disease is not severe was not supported by substantial evidence. ... At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Section 416.920 permits an ALJ to find mental impairments nonsevere at step two when substantial evidence supports no more than mild functional limitations.

Waddy v. SSA · filed 2021-05-18(c)

Thus, the ALJ’s determination that Waddy’s mental impairments of anxiety and depression were not severe at step two is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the adjudicator at step three to compare the claimant’s impairments with the listed impairments; meeting or equaling a listing establishes disability, while failing to do so leads to residual-functional-capacity analysis and later steps.

Relerford v. Berryhill · filed 2021-03-09(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three, the ALJ compares the claimant’s impairments to the impairments listed in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), (d). The claimant bears the burden of showing his impairments meet or equal an impairment in the listing. Id. If the claimant is successful, a disability is presumed and benefits are awarded. Id. If the claimant is unsuccessful, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and proceeds to Step Four. See id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv), (e). ... Plaintiff’s major depressive disorder, his PTSD, and his intellectual disability would undoubtedly compel independent disability findings at Step Three because they each clearly meet the criteria for the three relevant listings, to wit: Listing 12.04(A)(1) (depressive disorder), Listing 12.15 (trauma-related disorders), and Listing 12.05 (intellectual disorder)). See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, app. 1, §§ 12.04, 12.05, 12.15.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires a claimant to satisfy the applicable listed-impairment severity criteria to qualify for automatic SSI benefits at step three.

Hilkemeyer v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-08-26(a)(4)(iii)

Furthermore, her determination that Hilkemeyer’s affective disorder does not reach listing level is also supported by substantial evidence. Before an affective disorder is sufficiently severe that it leads to the automatic payment of SSI benefits under § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), it must result in at least two of the following: “1. Marked restriction of activities of daily living; or 2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning; or 3. Marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace; or 4. Repeated episodes of decompensation.” 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 § 12.04(B).

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

Christner v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-16(a)(4)(iii)

A claimant who is found to be mentally retarded under this listing is presumed disabled at step three without further inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, a claimant is deemed disabled if an impairment, or an equivalent, is listed in Appendix 1 and meets the duration requirement, regardless of age, education, or work experience.

Ball v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-02(d)

Third, if there is an impairment and the impairment, or an equivalent, is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations and meets the duration requirement, the individual is deemed disabled, regardless of the applicant’s age, education or work experience, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d), as, in such a case, there is a presumption the applicant with such an impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity.

Section 416.920(a)(iii) places on the claimant the burden of presenting evidence that the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment at step three.

Chopka v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-27(a)(iii)

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

At step two, an impairment or combination is severe only if it significantly limits basic work activities and lasts at least twelve consecutive months; one severe impairment satisfies the step-two requirement when all impairments are considered at later steps.

Nolan v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-03(c)

Step two of the five-step, sequential evaluation process asks whether the claimant’s impairment is severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” if it “significantly limits [Plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” and persists for at least twelve consecutive months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 416.905(a). ... At step two, “a claimant’s impairment is determined to be either severe or not severe. Step two is a threshold inquiry.” ... In the Eleventh Circuit, “the finding of any severe impairment, whether . . . it qualifies as a disability and whether . . . it results from a single severe impairment or a combination of impairments that together qualify as severe, is enough to satisfy the requirement of step two.” ... When an ALJ recognizes at least one severe impairment, the ALJ is not required to identify additional impairments at step two if the decision demonstrates the ALJ properly considered all impairments at subsequent steps. ... Because the ALJ found Plaintiff has at least one severe impairment, she was not required to identify all of Plaintiff’s severe impairments before moving to step three of the sequential evaluation process. See Tuggerson-Brown, 572 F. App’x at 951–52. Therefore, the ALJ did not err at step two.

At step two, the Commissioner must determine whether a medically determinable impairment is severe because it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, and the impairment must be considered throughout the sequential evaluation.

Dixon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(c)

After a medically determinable impairment is established, the ALJ must determine whether the impairment is “severe,” i.e., one that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... Thus, diabetes is a medically determinable impairment and should have been considered by the ALJ throughout the sequential evaluation. However, the ALJ did not mention diabetes at step two or anywhere in the decision. ... Because the ALJ failed to assess the medically determinable impairment of diabetes, it is not apparent that the ALJ evaluated the impact of that impairment, if any, on the RFC. Thus, the Court cannot conclude the error is harmless. As a result, this matter must be remanded for consideration of the impact of diabetes on the RFC finding and throughout the sequential evaluation.

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

Fitzpatrick v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-10(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.

At step three, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; meeting a listing establishes disability.

Martinez v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-20(a)(4)(iii)

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

Section 416.920(d) provides that a child is disabled at the third step when the impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Abercrombie o/b/o Z.H. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-31(d)

A child will be found “disabled” at the third step if her impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Section 416.920(c) requires a step-two determination of whether the claimant has a severe impairment, and § 416.920(d) provides that the disability inquiry proceeds to step three when at least one severe impairment exists.

Andren v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-10(c), (d)

At step two, the ALJ must determine if the claimant suffers from any impairments that are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). “An impairment or combination of impairments may be found ‘not severe only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s work.’” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686–87 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996)). As long as the claimant has at least one severe impairment, the disability inquiry moves on to step three. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three of the sequential evaluation, § 416.920(d) requires a finding of disability without considering age, education, or work experience when the claimant meets or equals a listed impairment.

Robinson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-08-04(d)

If a plaintiff successfully carries this burden, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is disabled without considering their age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). ... In sum, because Plaintiff met only some of the requirements, she does not qualify for Listing § 1.04. See Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990). Therefore, the ALJ was not in error.

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

Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-13(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). The claimant bears the burden of establishing that his condition meets or equals a Listing.

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

Crockett v. Saul · filed 2021-06-21(d)

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is of a severity to meet or medically equal the criteria of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 416.925, 416.926) (called “The Listings”).

Section 416.920(d) requires a claimant seeking to qualify at step three by equivalence to present medical findings equivalent in severity to all criteria of the most similar listed impairment; satisfying only some criteria is insufficient.

Kloiber v. Saul · filed 2021-11-23(d)

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

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) makes step three a disability determination based on whether the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; meeting all specified listing criteria establishes disability without further inquiry.

Matthews v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-08(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation, a claimant can establish disability if he shows that his impairment meets or equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). “Listed impairments are purposefully set a high level of severity because ‘the listings were designed to operate as a presumption of disability that makes further inquiry unnecessary.’” Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The mere diagnosis of a listed impairment “is not sufficient to sustain a finding of disability.” Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 183-84 (9th Cir. 1990). Rather, “[f]or a claimant to show that his impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1148 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). It is the claimant’s burden to prove his impairment meets the criteria of a listed impairment. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2005). ... Thus, Plaintiff has not established that the ALJ erred at step three.

Section 416.920(d) provides that a claimant who meets the criteria for a listed impairment is disabled.

Brown v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-18(d)

Meeting the criteria for a listed impairment or combination of listed impairments qualifies Plaintiff for social security benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990).

Section 416.920(d) requires the ALJ, at step three, to determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; if it does and the duration requirement is met, the claimant is disabled.

Shea v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-03(d)

The third step requires the ALJ to determine whether the individual’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, 416.926. If the individual’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the criteria of a listing and meets the duration requirement (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 416.909), then a finding of disabled is made.

At step three, a claimant is disabled if the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and satisfies the applicable duration requirement.

Craig v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-01(a)(4)(iii)

Under the third step, the ALJ asks whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listing under 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, which determines if an impairment caused by certain conditions is severe enough to entitle the individual to benefits. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. The impairment must also meet the duration requirement. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). In the case of hidradenitis suppurativa, the impairment must persist for three months despite treatment. Id. If both are met, the claimant is considered disabled and benefits are awarded, ending the inquiry. See id.; Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 2013).

Section 416.920(a) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and satisfies the duration requirement.

Murray v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-27(a)

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 listed in the Appendix to the federal regulations (the Listings), 20 C.F.R. 404, subpart P, Appendix 1, and must satisfy the duration requirement, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4(iii).

At step three, the ALJ must consider whether an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Tugmon · filed 2026-01-09(a)(4)(iii)

Step three requires the ALJ to consider whether any impairment meets or equals an impairment listed at 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

At step three, the SSA determines whether an impairment meets a listed impairment's criteria or is medically equivalent to them; either result establishes disability.

Loya · filed 2026-01-30(a)(4)(iii)

Step three directs the ALJ to determine whether the physical or mental impairment identified at step two is listed in the specified Appendix. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. This requires that the impairment satisfy each of the listing’s criteria. ... If the impairment is not listed, the ALJ must consider whether it medically equals the criteria for one of the listed impairments. Id. ... The claimant has the burden of proving equivalency in step three, but the ALJ also has an independent duty to analyze the claimant’s impairment and explain the reasons why the listing criteria is or is not satisfied.

At step three of the disability analysis, an ALJ must adequately explain whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; an inadequate analysis is reversible error.

Allen v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-12

The ALJ’s failure to properly conduct step three analysis is reversible error.

Section 416.920(f) requires determining whether jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant's age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity.

Williams v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-01-26(f)

The Commissioner must determine whether there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy which the claimant can perform consistent with his age, education, past work experience and residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f) (2003).

Section 416.920(g) divides the fifth step of the disability inquiry into assessing the claimant’s job qualifications and determining whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Petersen v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-25(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).

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

Ocasio v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-15(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).

Section 416.920(g) requires the Commissioner at step five to assess the claimant’s physical ability, age, education, and work experience and determine whether work exists in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Bartrum v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-26(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).

Section 416.920(g) directs that, at step five, a claimant is not disabled if, considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors, the claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Berger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-08(g)

At step five, the ALJ considers a claimant’s vocational factors and RFC, in conjunction with the Medical-Vocational Guidelines found at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 (the “Grids”) to determine whether the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. ... If the claimant can perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, given her RFC, then she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). ... Because Plaintiff’s non-exertional limitations did not significantly erode her occupational base for light exertional work, the ALJ properly applied Grid Rule 202.10 as a framework for determining that Plaintiff was not disabled. Tr. 32-34. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(g), 416.969a(d); 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Grid Rule 202.10; SSRs 85-15, 96-8p.

At step five, the ALJ evaluates medical evidence and testimony to determine residual functional capacity, while the vocational expert uses that capacity together with the claimant’s age, education, and work experience to assess whether the claimant can adjust to other work; the vocational expert need not evaluate the claimant’s medical conditions.

Webb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-05-19(a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

Under those 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. The vocational expert is not expected to evaluate the claimant’s medical conditions in making this determination. Indeed, vocational experts are not required to have any medical training, so any evaluation of medical evidence they perform would be outside their area of expertise. Accordingly, in light of the facts present in Howard, this circuit’s prior case law, and the role of a vocational expert under the social security regulations, we do not read Howard to hold that hypothetical questions to vocational experts are required to include lists of claimants’ medical conditions.

At step five, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) uses the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to assess whether the claimant can adjust to other work; the vocational expert addresses available employment rather than independently evaluating medical evidence.

Mitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-29(a)(4)(v)

A 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. The vocational expert is not expected to evaluate the claimant’s medical conditions in making this determination. Indeed, vocational experts are not required to have any medical training, so any evaluation of medical evidence they perform would be outside their area of expertise.

At step five, an ALJ may rely on a vocational expert’s response to a hypothetical that includes the claimant’s credibly established limitations.

Sherman v. Saul · filed 2022-08-18(a)(4)(v)

The Court finds that the ALJ did not err at step five of the sequential analysis in relying upon the VE’s responses to the hypothetical questions. The ALJ was not required to include all of the limitations assessed by Dr. Betts and Dr. LaJeunesse. The ALJ was only required to include all of Sherman’s credibly established limitations.

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step process, including consideration of whether an impairment is severe and the cumulative effects of multiple impairments.

Baldwin v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-24(a), (c)

A “severe impairment” is an impairment or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.... ” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... When a claimant has a number of impairments, the ALJ must consider their cumulative effect in making a disability determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a), (c). ... In assessing the plaintiffs RFC, the written opinion of the ALJ demonstrates that he considered the individual and cumulative effects of her impairments, subjective complaints, and all avenues presented that relate to the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of any pain, precipitating and aggravating factors, effects of medication, other medical treatment and daily activities. (App. at 16-18.)

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

Olson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-03(d)

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

Section 416.920(c) requires the ALJ at step two to determine whether an impairment significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Cardenas v. Saul · filed 2020-07-13(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Section 416.920(c) requires an adjudicator at step two to decide whether an impairment significantly limits the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

McBride v. Saul · filed 2020-06-24(c)

At step two of the sequential process, the ALJ must determine whether claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(c) requires a claimant to have a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Emery v. Apfel · filed 2005-02-16(c)

To meet this definition, an individual must have a “severe” impairment that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(c) places the determination of whether an impairment is severe or not severe at step two of the sequential disability-evaluation process.

Keane v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-10-25(c)

A claimant’s impairment is determined to be severe or not severe in step two of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). The regulations state that “[a]n impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit [a claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. § 404.1521(a). ... The ALJ found that Parcelles’s severe impairments during this time were diabetes, obesity, and coronary artery disease, and he thoroughly discussed the substantial evidence supporting his conclusion that Parcelles’s other alleged impairments – including obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), asthma, and sleep apnea – were not so severe as to interfere with his ability to work during the relevant months of 1999.

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

Roman v. Barnhart · filed 2007-01-23(b)

In evaluating a disability claim, the Social Security regulations require the Commissioner, through the ALJ, to apply a five-step process: ... next considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. ... At Steps Two and Three, ALJ Levin correctly found that: ... 2. The claimant has a combination of impairments considered “severe” based on the requirements in the Regulations 20 CFR § 416.920(b). ... 3. These medically-determinable impairments do not meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4.

At step two, § 416.920 requires treating an impairment as severe when it significantly limits basic work activities; the court held that the ALJ inadequately evaluated Rogers’s fibromyalgia under that standard.

Rogers v. Comm Social Security · filed 2007-05-24(a)(4)(ii)

To determine that a claimant has a severe impairment, the ALJ must find that an impairment or combination of impairments significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. ... As in Preston, the ALJ’s decision here impliedly dismissing or minimalizing Rogers’ fibromyalgia and instead accepting the non-treating doctors’ opinions as to her limitations from “arthralgias” was not based upon substantial evidence.

At step two, § 416.920 screens for a medically severe impairment; an impairment is nonsevere when it does not significantly limit basic work activities, and an omission at step two is harmless when the impairment's limitations are considered later in the residual-functional-capacity analysis.

(SS) Simmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-12(a)(4)(ii), (c)

At step two, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-41 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §416.920(a)(4)(ii). ... If a claimant does not have an impairment of combination of impairments which significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, the Commissioner will find that the claimant does not have a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... Despite finding at step two that Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was not a severe impairment, the ALJ in this case carefully considered the evidence relating to Plaintiff’s complaints of pain and stiffness in her determination of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity at steps four and five. See AR 28-30. ... Because the ALJ fully considered the impact of Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia in determining her residual functional capacity, any error attributable to the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was not a severe impairment was harmless.

At step two, § 416.920 requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Nicholas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-05(a)(4)(ii)

“At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a ‘severe impairment’ that ‘significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.’” Serrano v. Colvin, 2018 WL 991792, *3 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c)). “Basic mental work activities include the ability to: understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions; use judgment; respond appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations; and deal with changes in a routine work setting.” Cuenca v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2016 WL 2865726, *5 (N.D.N.Y.), adopted, 2016 WL 2858858 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(b)(3)-(6), 416.921(b)(3)-(6)). “The mere presence of an impairment, or the fact that the claimant has been diagnosed or treated for an impairment, is insufficient to render a condition ‘severe.’ Rather, severity is determined by the functional limitations that an impairment imposes.” Hayes v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 3069116, *3 (W.D.N.Y. 2018). ... “While plaintiff was diagnosed with anxiety, plaintiff points to no evidence that it significantly impacted her ability to perform work activities. In any event, as the Commissioner argues, ALJ Baird gave “great weight” to the opinion of Dr. Fabiano, who “considered the effects of Plaintiff’s anxiety, along with her other impairments, on her functional limitations”, and concluded that she had only mild limitations in the ability to maintain attention and concentration and to deal appropriately with stress. Commissioner’s Brief [16-1], p. 10. Therefore, any error was harmless.”

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) treats a mental impairment as non-severe when it does not significantly limit a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.

Hicks v. SSA · filed 2020-02-12(a)(4)(ii)

A mental impairment is not severe if it does not “significantly limit [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; if none is severe, the disability analysis ends, while one severe impairment permits proceeding to step three.

Bellardine v. SSA · filed 2020-03-16(a)(4)(ii)

The ALJ did not err in categorizing Ms. Bellardine’s narcolepsy as a non-severe impairment, but if it was error, that error was harmless. At step two, the ALJ makes a determination whether a claimant has a condition or combination of conditions that qualifies as “severe.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 416.921(a). If a claimant suffers from one or more severe impairments, the ALJ proceeds to step three. If not, the analysis ends and the claimant is found not disabled.

At step two, § 416.920 requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment and, if so, proceed to the next step.

GARDNER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECUIRTY · filed 2020-05-15(c), (a)

At step two of the analysis, an 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. §416.1420(a). The mere existence of a diagnosis or an abnormal reading does not equate to a severe impairment. Phillips v. Barnhart, 91 Fed. Appx. 775, 780 (3d Cir. March 10, 2004). To be clear, the question of severity relies not on the particular condition, but on the limitations stemming from that condition. Id. An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities and/or does not last or is not expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 20 C.F.R. §§416.920(c), 416.921(a), 416.909, 42 U.S.C. §423(d). 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).

Section 416.920(c) requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment at step two of the disability evaluation.

Belt v. Saul · filed 2020-12-28(c)

Under the Social Security Act, the Commissioner has established a five-step process for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 404.1529. ... Second, the claimant must have a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 404.1520(c). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that remand is required because the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s migraine headaches were not a severe impairment is not supported by substantial evidence.

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

Guerrero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-21(c)

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must determine if the claimant suffers from any medically determinable impairments that are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is not considered to be “severe” if it does not “significantly limit” a claimant's mental or physical abilities to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-3p, 1996 WL 374181, at *1. Basic work activities are those “abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522(b); SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, at *3. An impairment is not severe if the evidence establishes only a slight abnormality that has “no more than a minimal effect on an individual[’]s ability to work.” SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, at *3; Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s fecal incontinence was a non-severe impairment is not supported by substantial evidence.

At step two, an impairment is severe only if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; the inquiry is a de minimis screening for groundless claims.

(SS) Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-17(c)

At step two of the five-step analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether a plaintiff has a “severe” medical impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). An impairment is “severe” if it “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § § 416.920(c), 416.921(a). The evaluation at step two is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims. Bowen v. Yukert, 482 U.S. at 153–154 (1987); Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001). An impairment is not severe if the evidence establishes “a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual[’]s ability to work.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Section 416.920(c) requires the ALJ to decide at Step Two whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments; if one is severe, § 416.920(a) directs the ALJ to proceed to the next step.

GRIFFIN v. KIJAZAKI · filed 2022-06-16(c), (a)

In his third footnote, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred at Step Two of the sequential analysis. At this step, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or a combination of impairments that is severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at Step Two. The mere existence of a diagnosis or an abnormal reading does not equate to a severe impairment; the question of severity relies not on the particular condition, but on the limitations stemming from that condition. See Phillips v. Barnhart, 91 Fed. Appx. 775, 780 (3d Cir. 2004). An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities and/or does not last or is not expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 416.922. If a claimant is found to have a severe impairment, then the ALJ proceeds to the next step. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). ... In this case, the ALJ considered the “entire record” to determine if Plaintiff had an impairment or “a combination of impairments” that is severe and found Plaintiff to have the following severe impairments: major depressive disorder with psychotic features, schizophrenia, psychotic disorder, antisocial personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and malingering. (R. 349-50). The ALJ then proceeded to Steps Three, Four, and Five. Thus, Plaintiff was not denied benefits at Step Two. Rather, the ALJ proceeded beyond Step Two, and in so doing, stated that in making the RFC determination he considered all symptoms. (R. 349). Therefore, any purported error was harmless such that a reversal or remand on this basis is not warranted.

At step two, an ALJ must consider whether an impairment is severe; a non-severity finding must be supported by substantial evidence.

Harp v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-29(a)(4)(ii)

“At step two, an ALJ must consider whether an impairment is severe.” Lopez v. Berryhill, No. CV 16-552 SCY, 2017 WL 4356384, at *3 (D.N.M. Sept. 30, 2017) (citing Smith v. Colvin, 821 F.3d 1264, 1266 (10th Cir. 2016) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii))).

Section 416.920(c) governs the step-two determination whether a claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments.

Rogers v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-11(c)

At Step 2 the ALJ is tasked with determining whether a claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is severe, or a combination of impairments that are severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); 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.

At step two, § 416.920(c) requires considering whether a medically determinable impairment is severe; the court found no error in treating Seeley’s somatoform disorder as a severe impairment.

Seeley v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-02(c)

Given Shields’s diagnosis, it was not error for the ALJ to identify somatoform disorder as a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 416.922.

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as not severe when it does not significantly limit the claimant’s ability to conduct basic work activities.

Popov v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-28(c)

An impairment is “not severe” if it does not “significantly limit” a claimant’s ability to conduct basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see also Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 525 (1990).

At step two, § 416.920 requires determining whether a claimant has a medically determinable impairment and, if so, whether it is severe because it significantly limits physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

Silva v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-12(c), (a)(4)(ii)

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

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

Snovelle Bear v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-20(c)

After a medically determinable impairment is established, the ALJ must determine whether the impairment is “severe;” i.e., one that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).

Section 416.920(c) treats an impairment as nonsevere when it does not significantly limit a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

(SS) Nichols v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-20(c)

“[A]n impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] . . . ability to do basic work activities.” Id. at 1290 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) & 404.1521(a)). See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 416.921(a).

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, including a severity screen at step two, a residual-functional-capacity assessment before step four, and past-work and other-work inquiries at steps four and five.

Wilsey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(a)(4), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987). ... Step 2: Does the claimant have a medically-severe impairment or combination of impairments? 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the disability claim is denied. ... If the impairment is severe, the evaluation proceeds to the third step. ... Step 3: Does the claimant’s impairment meet or equal one of the listed impairments acknowledged by the Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity? 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); 20 C.F.R. § 404 Subpt. P. App. 1. ... Before considering Step 4, the ALJ must first determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). An individual’s residual functional capacity is her ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from his impairments. ... Step 4: Does the impairment prevent the claimant from performing work she has performed in the past? 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). If the claimant is able to perform his previous work, he is not disabled. ... If the claimant cannot perform this work, the evaluation proceeds to the fifth and final step. ... Step 5: Is the claimant able to perform other work in the national economy in view of her age, education, and work experience? 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).

Section 416.920(d) makes impairments meeting the Listings automatically disabling, so the Listings provide a shortcut to a disability finding.

Elam v. Barnhart · filed 2005-09-09(d)

Impairments found in “the Listings” are those that the Commissioner acknowledges are so severe that they automatically preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d), Soc. Sec. R. 88-3c (1988). Accordingly, the Listings function as a short-cut for claimants with impairments that render them per se disabled.

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

Caldwell v. Barnhart · filed 2006-05-11

The Social Security regulations set out a sequential five-step test the ALJ is to perform in order to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The ALJ must consider whether the claimant: (1) is presently employed; (2) has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment listed in the regulations as being so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity; (4) is unable to perform his past relevant work; and (5) is unable to perform any other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. The burden of proof is on plaintiff during steps one through four, and only after plaintiff has reached step five does the burden shift to the Commissioner.

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires SSI disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-04-24(a)(4)(SSI)

A determination of disability is based on a five-step analysis set out in the regulations. Step one asks if the claimant is currently engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” Step two asks if the claimant’s impairment is “severe.” Step three asks if the impairment appears in the “Listing of Impairments,” 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. Step four asks if the claimant can still do “past relevant work.” Step five asks if the claimant “can make an adjustment to other work,” with reference to the “Medical Vocational Guidelines” (“the Grids”), 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Tables 1-3. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(SSD); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(SSI). The claimant bears the burden on steps one to four, the Commissioner on step five.

Section 416.920 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of whether a claimant is disabled, proceeding from substantial gainful activity through the ability to perform other work.

Hoadley v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-29

In evaluating Mr. Hoadley’s case, the ALJ followed the familiar five-step analysis, set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, to determine whether plaintiff was disabled under the Social Security Act.

Section 416.920 requires a five-step sequential evaluation of disability claims, and a negative finding at step three does not end the inquiry; the adjudicator must continue to steps four and five.

Boland v. Dept. of Children and Families · filed 2008-04-09(a)

An affirmative answer to any of the questions leads to the next question, or, in the case of steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer to any questions other than to step three leads to the finding of not disabled. ... If question three is answered in the negative, this does not end the inquiry and the hearing officer must still go on to consider questions four and five.

Section 416.920 uses a five-step disability evaluation: an impairment is severe at step two when it significantly limits basic work abilities, and at step five the Commissioner must show the claimant can perform other work in significant numbers.

Russell v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-27(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(v)

“2. Is the claimant’s impairment “severe” under the Commissioner’s regulations? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); 416.920(a)(4)(ii). Unless expected to result in death, an impairment is “severe” if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(a); 416.921(a). ... If the claimant has a severe impairment, the analysis proceeds to step three.” ... “The ALJ’s finding that Ms. Russell’s mental limitations were not severe was not harmless, as argued by the Commissioner. Had Dr. Hughey’s identification of “marked” mental limitations been recognized as establishing depression as a severe impairment at step two, and subsequently in determining Ms. Russell’s RFC, the VE testified such limitations would have precluded employment at all jobs.”

Section 416.920(a)(4) establishes a five-step process for evaluating disability claims, requiring the administrative law judge to continue beyond step two when at least one impairment is severe.

Smith v. Colvin · filed 2016-05-09(a)(4)

The Social Security Administration has established a five-step process for consideration of disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). At the second step, the administrative law judge is to consider whether an impairment is severe. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the impairment is severe, the judge must continue to consider the impairment through the third, fourth, and fifth steps. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii)-(v). If the claimant has no severe impairments, the judge can end the review at the second step. Allman v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1326, 1330 (10th Cir. 2016). ... If the judge erred, however, the error would be harmless. Having found severe impairments at step two, the judge went on to consider Ms. Smith’s residual functional capacity. As a result, a failure to include the left shoulder impingement as a severe impairment would not have affected the outcome. In these circumstances, any error at step two would have been harmless. See Allman v. Colvin, 813 F.3d at 1330 (“[T]he failure to find a particular impairment severe at step two is not reversible error when the [administrative law judge] finds that at least one other impairment is severe.”).

Section 416.920(a) uses the sequential evaluation framework, with the claimant's RFC applied at steps four and five to decide whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or adjust to other work in the national economy.

Woodbrook · filed 2019-06-06(a)

The RFC is used at step four of the sequential analysis to determine if a claimant is able to perform past relevant work, and at step five to determine if a claimant can adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). ... As discussed above, because the ALJ erred in her assessment of the effectiveness of migraine treatment, and therefore did not incorporate all of the limitations caused by migraines. The Court finds that the ALJ erred in her RFC formulation.

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires the Commissioner to stop the sequential disability evaluation once a claimant can be found disabled or not disabled at a step.

Rowell v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-06(a)(4)

To facilitate a uniform and efficient processing of disability claims, regulations promulgated under the Act have reduced the statutory definition of disability to a series of five sequential questions. See, e.g., Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460 (1983) (discussing considerations and noting “need for efficiency” in considering disability claims). An examiner must consider the following: (1) whether the claimant is working; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether that impairment meets or equals an impairment included in the Listings;5 (4) whether such impairment prevents claimant from performing PRW; and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing specific jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. These considerations are sometimes referred to as the “five steps” of the Commissioner’s disability analysis. If a decision regarding disability may be made at any step, no further inquiry is necessary. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) (providing that if Commissioner can find claimant disabled or not disabled at a step, Commissioner makes determination and does not go on to the next step).

Section 416.920(b) requires a claimant to not be engaged in substantial gainful activity at step one, while § 416.920(d) requires determining at step three whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment, which results in per se disability.

Omerovic v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-30(b), (d)

Under the Social Security Act, the Commissioner has established a five-step process for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 404.1529. “If a claimant fails to meet the criteria at any step in the evaluation of disability, the process ends and the claimant is determined to be not disabled.” Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 590-91 (8th Cir. 2004)). In this sequential analysis, the claimant first cannot be engaged in “substantial gainful activity” to qualify for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(b), 404.1520(b). Second, the claimant must have a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 404.1520(c). ... Third, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment which meets or equals one of the impairments listed in the Regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 404.1520(d). If the claimant has one of, or the medical equivalent of, these impairments, then the claimant is per se disabled without consideration of the claimant’s age, education, or work history. Id.

Section 416.920 requires a five-step sequential evaluation to determine disability, progressing from substantial gainful activity and impairment severity through the listings, past work, and other work in the national economy based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Kautzman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. Step one determines if the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activities. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activities, benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activities, then the decision maker proceeds to step two and determines whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the disability claim is denied. If the impairment is severe, the evaluation proceeds to the third step, which compares the claimant’s impairment with a list of impairments acknowledged by the Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude any gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. If the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled. If the impairment is not one conclusively presumed to be disabling, then the evaluation proceeds to the fourth step, which determines whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing work she has performed in the past. If the claimant is able to perform her previous work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant cannot perform her previous work, the decision maker moves on to the fifth and final step of the process. In the fifth step, the decision maker determines whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy in view of her residual functional capacity and age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987).

Section 416.920 establishes a five-step disability evaluation; at step three, a claimant is disabled when the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and the durational requirement, and at step five the Commissioner must show that the claimant can adjust to other work and perform specific jobs in the national economy.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-27(a)(4)(v), (d)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142 (1987). ... If a claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work in the national economy, the claimant will be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). ... A claimant is considered disabled at step three when his impairment meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1 and meets the durational requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s conclusions regarding the paragraph B criteria are not supported by substantial evidence, particularly with respect to finding no limitation in three of the four areas.

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires the Social Security Administration to determine disability through a five-step sequential evaluation process.

Johns v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(a)(4)

To decide whether a person is disabled, the Social Security Administration (SSA) uses a five-step sequential process. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4).

Section 416.920 requires an age-18 disability redetermination to be evaluated under the rules used for an adult’s new application, including the adult sequential evaluation process.

Dake v. Saul · filed 2020-08-10

When a child’s eligibility for benefits is redetermined under the adult criteria when the child reaches age 18, the ALJ must consider the redetermination under the rules that apply to an adult that has filed a new application, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, not the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.994.

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires disability claims for SSI to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, including determining at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments.

(SS) Telly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-16(a)(4)

The Social Security Regulations set out a five-step sequential process for determining whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. ... see, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) (providing the “five-step sequential evaluation process” for SSI claimants). ... At step two of the five-step sequential inquiry, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. ... Viewing the record as a whole, the medical and opinion evidence in this case does not “clearly establish” that Plaintiff lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s step two findings cannot stand.