20 C.F.R. § 416.920

Section 416.920(d) requires the ALJ to determine at step three whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if not, the analysis proceeds to step four, where the ALJ assesses residual functional capacity and whether the claimant can perform past relevant work under § 416.920(f).

Brown v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-29(d) (f)

At step 3, the ALJ evaluates 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. If the ALJ does not find that the claimant meets a listing, then the ALJ’s analysis continues to Step 4. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. At Step 4, the ALJ determines claimant’s RFC and thus whether a claimant is prevented from doing his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(f), 404.1520(f). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s RFC determination as to Plaintiff’s ability to interact with others to be supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ’s analysis at steps 3 and 4 are not inconsistent.

Section 416.920 establishes a five-step sequential process for deciding disability claims; the analysis proceeds in order, and the relevant step asks whether the claimant can perform past relevant work after considering residual functional capacity.

Calvin-Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-09(a)(4)

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). Under this process, the Commissioner must determine, in sequence, the following: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment(s) (i.e., one that significantly limits her ability to perform work-related functions); (3) whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of Appendix 1, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P; (4) considering the Commissioner’s determination of claimant’s RFC, whether the claimant can perform her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of her prior work, the ALJ must decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of her RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4).

Section 416.920 requires disability to be determined through a five-step sequential evaluation, including consideration of substantial gainful activity, severe impairments, listed impairments, residual functional capacity, past work, and other work at Step Five.

Eich v. Saul · filed 2020-12-03

The Commissioner engages in a five-step evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987). At Step One, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. At Step Two, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of impairments. At Step Three, the ALJ determines whether the severe impairment(s) meets or medically equals the severity of a listed impairment; if so, the claimant is determined to be disabled, and if not, the ALJ's analysis proceeds to Step Four. At Step Four of the process, the ALJ must assess the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC) – that is, the most the claimant is able to do despite his physical and mental limitations, Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir. 2011) – and determine whether the claimant is able to perform any past relevant work. ... The claimant bears the burden through Step Four of the analysis. If he meets this burden and shows that he is unable to perform his past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at Step Five to produce evidence demonstrating that the claimant has the RFC to perform other jobs in the national economy that exist in significant numbers and are consistent with his impairments and vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires a severe, sufficiently long-lasting impairment or combination at step two, while subsection (a)(4)(iii) directs a disability finding at step three when an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-04(a)(4)(ii) (a)(4)(iii)

At the second step in the sequential evaluation process a claimant must demonstrate she suffers from a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement . . . or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii); ... The undersigned finds it unnecessary to decide whether the ALJ erred in failing to find Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairment is severe. ... Thus, once a severe impairment is found, the ALJ must consider the “combined effect” of all the medically determinable severe and non-severe impairments in assessing a claimant’s RFC. ... At the third step, a claimant will be found disabled if his impairment meets or medically equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); ... A claimant must satisfy all the criteria to “meet” the listing and be deemed disabled. ... However, a claimant is also deemed disabled if his impairment is the medical equivalent of a listing.

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

Burton v. Saul · filed 2020-12-30(e)

Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).

Section 416.920 requires the Commissioner to evaluate SSI claims through five sequential steps and stop once a claimant is conclusively found disabled or not disabled.

Jessee v. Saul · filed 2021-01-19(a)(4)

The Commissioner uses a five-step process in evaluating SSI claims. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (2019); see also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460-62 (1983); Hall v. Harris, 658 F. 2d 260, 264-65 (4th Cir. 1981). This process requires the Commissioner to consider, in order, whether a claimant 1) is working; 2) has a severe impairment; 3) has an impairment that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment; 4) can return to her past relevant work; and 5) if not, whether she can perform other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If the Commissioner finds conclusively that a claimant is or is not disabled at any point in this process, review does not proceed to the next step. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) (2019).

Section 416.920 sets out a five-step disability evaluation under which the adjudicator considers substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, residual functional capacity and past relevant work, and the ability to perform other work in the national economy, with the inquiry ending at specified steps if the claimant is not disabled.

BELL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-01-28(b), (c), (e), and (g)

At step one, the ALJ determines whether the plaintiff is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). If so, then the inquiry ends because the plaintiff is not disabled. ... At step two, the ALJ decides whether the plaintiff has a “severe impairment” or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If the plaintiff does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, then the inquiry ends because the plaintiff is not disabled. Otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to step three. ... At step four, the ALJ must determine the plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and determine whether the plaintiff can perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e), (f). If the plaintiff can perform past relevant work, then the inquiry ends because the plaintiff is not disabled. Otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to the final step. ... At step five, the ALJ must decide whether the plaintiff, considering the plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, can perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). If the ALJ determines that the plaintiff can do so, then the plaintiff is not disabled. Otherwise, the plaintiff is presumed to be disabled if the impairment or combination of impairments has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months.

Section 416.920 establishes a sequential evaluation process for disability claims, requiring the listed steps in order and allowing benefits only when the claimant cannot perform other work at step five.

Montgomery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(a), (g)

The Social Security Administration, in order to regularize the adjudicative process, promulgated the detailed regulations currently in effect. These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).

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

Melville v. Saul · filed 2021-05-25(a)(4)(iii)

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

Section 416.920 establishes a sequential process for determining disability, and benefits are available only when the claimant cannot perform other work at step five.

Clance v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-10(a), (g)

The Social Security Administration, to regularize the adjudicative process, promulgated detailed regulations that establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine if a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).

Section 416.920(a)(4) establishes distinct stages in the sequential evaluation, so findings at step two cannot substitute for the required analysis at step four.

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

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

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires disability to be determined through a five-step sequential process: the claimant bears the burden through the first four steps, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner only at step five.

Powell v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-18(a)(4)

This argument misapprehends the Commissioner’s sequential evaluation process. The determination of disability is a five-step process, in which Ms. Powell bore the burden of showing that she was not engaged in substantial gainful activity, that she had a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year, and that either her impairments met or equaled a listing, or that she was unable to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i-iv); see also Grogan, 399 at 1261. Only then, once ALJ Gerstner proceeded to the step five determination of Ms. Powell’s ability to perform other work in the national economy, did the burden shift to the Commissioner. Grogan, 399 F.3d at 1261. ALJ Gerstner’s finding of multiple severe impairments was thus merely a threshold determination which was required in order to proceed to the other steps. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 416.945(a)(2).

Section 416.920(a) requires disability determinations to proceed through a five-step sequential analysis; a negative answer at any step other than step three leads to a finding of not disabled, and a Step Two error is harmless when another severe impairment is found.

Guthrie v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-11-19(a)

Determinations of disability require a five-step analysis in which the ALJ determines: ... “An affirmative answer to any of the above questions leads either to the next question, or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of ‘not disabled.’” McDaniel, 800 F.2d at 1030 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)-(f)). ... Thus, “[a]ny error” at Step Two must be “harmless because the ALJ found in [Guthrie’s] favor as to impairment” by determining that Guthrie’s generalized anxiety disorder, depression, PTSD, vertigo, and carpal tunnel syndrome counted as severe impairments.

Section 416.920(a) requires the ALJ to continue the sequential evaluation after finding a severe impairment.

BRUMFIELD v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-01-06(a)

If a claimant is found to have a severe impairment, then the ALJ proceeds to the next step. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(a).

Section 416.920(a)(4) requires the disability determination to stop at the first step where the claimant is found disabled or not disabled.

Greene v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-14(a)(4)

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(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential process, ending with whether the claimant can perform other work, and § 416.920(g) makes inability to perform other work necessary for benefits.

Knowles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-15(a), (g)

The Social Security Administration, to regularize the adjudicative process, promulgated detailed regulations that establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine if a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1; and whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).

Section 416.920(a)–(f) establishes a five-step sequential process for determining whether a Social Security claimant is disabled, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner bearing it at step five.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-06(a)–(f)

A five-step process, known as “sequential” review, is used by the Commissioner in determining whether a Social Security claimant is disabled. The Commissioner evaluates a disability claim pursuant to the following five-step analysis: a. An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful activity will not be found to be “disabled” regardless of medical findings; b. An individual who does not have a “severe impairment” will not be found to be disabled; c. If an individual is not working and is suffering from a severe impairment that meets the durational requirement and that “meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1” of Subpart P of Regulations No. 4, a finding of “disabled” will be made without consideration of vocational factors; d. If, upon determining residual functional capacity, the Commissioner finds that an individual is capable of performing work he or she has done in the past, a finding of “not disabled” must be made; e. If an individual's residual functional capacity precludes the performance of past work, other factors including age, education, and past work experience must be considered to determine if other work can be performed. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)–(f). The burden of proof and production during the first four steps of the inquiry rests on the claimant. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995). At the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that other work exists in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Id.

Section 416.920(a)(4) establishes a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining disability.

Felt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-12(a)(4)

Acting pursuant to its statutory rulemaking authority (42 U.S.C. § 405(a)), the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) promulgated regulations establishing a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine disability. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) (2015).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires the decision maker to determine at step two whether the claimant has a severe impairment, while subsection (a)(4)(v) requires assessing at step five whether the claimant can perform other work considering residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

Darling v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-08(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(v)

If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activities, 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. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the disability claim is denied. ... If the claimant cannot perform this work, the fifth and final step in the process determines whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy considering her residual functional capacity and age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(a)(4)(v); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987).

Section 416.920(a) establishes a five-step disability-evaluation process: the claimant bears the burden through step four, and at step five the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show the claimant can adjust to other work available in the national economy.

Pedersen v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-27(a)

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). In steps one through four, the claimant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-1099. This burden is met once a claimant establishes that a physical or mental impairment prevents the claimant from engaging in past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). If a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the ALJ proceeds to step five, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show (1) the claimant can make an adjustment to other work; and (2) the claimant can perform specific jobs that exist in the national economy. Batson v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193-1194 (9th Cir. 2004). 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).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(i)–(v) requires alleged disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential five-step process.

Appling v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-23(a)(4)(i)–(v)

Under the applicable regulations, an alleged disability is evaluated under the sequential five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i)–(v).

Section 416.920 establishes a five-step disability evaluation, including a step-two determination of whether the claimant has a medically determinable severe impairment; an error in labeling an impairment is harmless when the ALJ continues the evaluation and accounts for the limitations in the RFC.

Crary v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-06(a)

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has any medically determinable severe impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(ii). ... The Court finds the ALJ did not err. The step-two analysis is “a de minimis screening device used to dispose of groundless claims.” ... Because the ALJ did not end the analysis at step two, any error in the precise labeling of Plaintiff’s mental health diagnoses is harmless.

Section 416.920(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential process, with the ALJ deciding the listed issues in order and stopping further inquiry if disability is established.

Hendrix v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-13(a)

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; (3) whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; and, (4) whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of the claimant’s age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a).

Section 416.920 sets out a five-step process for determining disability, including evaluating whether the claimant has a severe impairment and proceeding through later residual-functional-capacity and work-availability steps.

Franchini v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-15

The Commissioner has established a five-step evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. ... In sum, the ALJ properly evaluated the mental impairments at Step Two and reasonably considered such impairments at subsequent steps and accordingly found the mild limitations resulting from the non-severe impairments did not warrant any mental restrictions in the RFC.

Section 416.920(a) establishes a five-step disability-evaluation process: the claimant bears the burden through step four, and at step five the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Rios v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-16(a)

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, 140–42 (1987). In steps one through four, the claimant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098–99. This burden is met once a claimant establishes that a physical or mental impairment prevents the claimant from engaging in past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). If a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the ALJ proceeds to step five, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show (1) the claimant can make an adjustment to other work and (2) the claimant can perform specific jobs that exist in the national economy. Batson v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193–94 (9th Cir. 2004). 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). ... The Court finds the ALJ erred. Once a claimant has established that they suffer from a severe impairment that prevents them from doing any work they have done in the past, the claimant has made a prima facie showing of disability. At this point the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform some other work that exists in “significant numbers” in the national economy, taking into consideration the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999).

Section 416.920 requires an ALJ to evaluate disability claims through five ordered steps and stop once a step determines whether the claimant is disabled.

Adames v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-27

An ALJ must proceed through a five-step process to make a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The steps are followed in order; if it is determined that the claimant is or is not disabled at a step of the evaluation process, the evaluation will not progress to the next step. See id.

Section 416.920(a)(4) ends the sequential disability evaluation when a claimant is conclusively found disabled or not disabled at a step.

Slagle v. Saul · filed 2022-09-30(a)(4)

This process requires the Commissioner to consider, in order, whether a claimant 1) is working; 2) has a severe impairment; 3) has an impairment that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment; 4) can return to her past relevant work; and 5) if not, whether she can perform other work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If the Commissioner finds conclusively that a claimant is or is not disabled at any point in this process, review does not proceed to the next step. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) (2021).

Section 416.920 sets out a five-step sequential evaluation for SSI claims, with the claimant bearing the burden through the first four steps and the Commissioner bearing it at step five.

ABBAS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-10-12(a)(4)

The Commissioner employs a five-step sequential evaluation process for SSI claims, See generally 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)()-(v); Poulos v. Comm 'r of Soc, Sec., 474 F.3d 88, 91 (3d Cir, 2007). The claimant bears the burden of proof for the first four steps of the analysis, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner for the fifth step. Poulos, 474 F.3d at 91-92; Jones y, Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 503 (3d Cir. 2004).

Section 416.920(a)(4) permits the Commissioner to decide a disability claim at any step of the five-step sequential evaluation and stop without proceeding further.

White v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-13(a)(4)

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(a)(4) establishes a five-step sequential evaluation process for disability claims, ending the inquiry when disability can be decided at a step.

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

Regulations issued by the Commissioner establish a five-step sequential evaluation process to be followed in a disability case. ... If a decision regarding disability can be made at any step of the process the inquiry ceases. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) directs the decision maker to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments, while § 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires determining whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy considering residual functional capacity and vocational factors.

McCuistion v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-27(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(v)

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 404.1520. ... If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activities, 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. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the disability claim is denied. ... If the claimant cannot perform this work, the fifth and final step in the process determines whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy considering his residual functional capacity and age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(a)(4)(v); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987).

Section 416.920 requires an age-18 disability redetermination to be evaluated under the adult rules for a new application, including the five-step sequential process.

Prieto v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-31

However, 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’s 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) directs the agency to stop the sequential evaluation once it determines at a step that the claimant is disabled or not disabled.

Hickman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-08(a)(4)

... the ALJ nevertheless proceeded to step five and found that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff is able to perform. AR 24–26; see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) (“If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at a step, we make our determination or decision and we do not go on to the next step.”). Here, although the ALJ was not required to proceed to step five, the ALJ found Plaintiff capable of performing the requirements of a food and beverage clerk, document preparer, and addressing clerk. AR 26. ... Therefore, any error at step four would be harmless because the ALJ properly found Plaintiff not disabled at step five.

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequence, with the claimant bearing the burden through step four and the Commissioner at step five.

Marek v. Saul · filed 2023-09-05(a)

A five-step inquiry controls whether an individual is eligible for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, which the Seventh Circuit has summarized as follows: The ALJ must consider whether: (1) the claimant is presently employed; (2) the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) the claimant’s impairment meets or equals any impairment listed in the regulations as being so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity; (4) the claimant’s residual functional capacity leaves him unable to perform his past relevant work; and (5) the claimant is unable to perform any other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Butler v. Kijakazi, 4 F.4th 498, 501 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351-52 (7th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920)). The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five.

Section 416.920(a) establishes a five-step disability evaluation and requires considering a claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience when determining ability to perform work in the national economy.

Henderson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-24(a)

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). ... The Commissioner considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience in order to determine if the claimant is able to perform a job in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a).

Section 416.920 establishes a five-step disability evaluation and requires the residual-functional-capacity assessment to account for all of a claimant’s impairments, including non-severe impairments.

(SS) Quiroz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-06(a), (e)

To achieve uniformity in the decision-making process, the Commissioner has established a sequential five-step process for evaluating a claimant’s alleged disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)-(f). The ALJ proceeds through the steps and stops upon reaching a dispositive finding that the claimant is or is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927, 416.929. Specifically, the ALJ is required to determine: (1) whether a claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity during the period of alleged disability, (2) whether the claimant had medically determinable “severe impairments,” (3) whether these impairments meet or are medically equivalent to one of the listed impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, (4) whether the claimant retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform past relevant work, and (5) whether the claimant had the ability to perform other jobs existing in significant numbers at the national and regional level. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)-(f). While the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, the burden shifts to the commissioner at step five to prove that Plaintiff can perform other work in the national economy given her RFC, age, education and work experience. ... The RFC must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), 416.945(a)(2); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96–8p.

Section 416.920(a)(4) sets out a five-step sequential disability evaluation and permits the inquiry to end when the claimant is found not disabled at any step.

Garcia v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-09(a)(4)

The regulations outline a five-step, sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled, asking: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) based on an RFC assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). ... If the ALJ determines that the claimant is not disabled at any step of the evaluation process, the inquiry may end. Id. § 416.920(a)(4).

Section 416.920 requires the Commissioner to use a five-step sequential evaluation, including comparing severe impairments with listed impairments at step three and considering other available work at step five.

Wildonger v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-28(a)(4)(iii), (g)

The Commissioner must perform a five-step analysis to determine whether a person is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427-28 (3d Cir. 1999). ... If the claimant’s impairments are severe, at step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s impairments to a list of impairments that are presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. See id. at § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428. When a claimant’s impairment or its equivalent matches a listed impairment, the claimant is presumed disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... If the claimant is unable to return to past relevant work, at step five, the Commissioner must demonstrate that the claimant’s impairments do not preclude an adjustment to any other available work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g); Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428.

Section 416.920(a)(4) uses a sequential evaluation in which step three asks whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and step five asks whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy based on the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Henry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-13(a)(4)(iii), (a)(4)(v)

At step three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Part 404. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), (d). If so, the claimant is automatically found to be disabled. Id. At step four, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC and determines whether the claimant is still capable of performing past relevant work. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv), (e). If so, the claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final step, where the ALJ determines whether the claimant can perform any other work in the national economy based on the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v), (f). If not, the claimant is disabled. Id.

Section 416.920(a) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, including a Step Two determination whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment; a Step Two denial requires only minimal limitations shown by an unambiguous record.

Dion v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-30(a)

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)-(g). The claimant bears the burden of proof on the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). First, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. Second, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental impairment. If not, the claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. At Step Two, a claimant need only make a de minimis showing for the analysis to proceed; indeed, a proper denial of a claim at Step Two requires an unambiguous record showing only minimal limitations. See Glandin v. Kijakazi, 86 F.4th 838, 844 (9th Cir. 2023).

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

Stueckle v. Dudek · filed 2025-02-26(a)

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. This involves a two-step process: 1) determining whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment and 2) if so, determining whether the impairment is severe.

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to be evaluated through a five-step sequential process, and step two may screen out only impairments causing no more than minimal work-related limitations.

Worden v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-10

The Commissioner uses a five-step process, set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920, to evaluate disability insurance and SSI disability claims. ... The ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled only after completing step two of the sequential analysis was legal error and not supported by substantial evidence. ... There is clearly sufficient evidence in the administrative record for the ALJ to have concluded that Plaintiff’s impairments were more than de minimis as of the date last insured. While the ALJ may have ultimately determined that Plaintiff was not disabled, the ALJ’s failure to complete the five step sequential analysis warrants remand.

Section 416.920 requires disability claims to be evaluated through sequential steps, including consideration of severe impairments, residual functional capacity and past relevant work, and the ability to perform other work in the national economy.

WHITE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-06-10(b), (c), (e), (g)

The Social Security Act establishes a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the statute. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). ... At step one, the ALJ determines whether the plaintiff is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). ... At step two, the ALJ decides whether the plaintiff has a “severe impairment” or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). ... At step four, the ALJ must determine the plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and determine whether the plaintiff can perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e), (f). ... At step five, the ALJ must decide whether the plaintiff, considering the plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, can perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). If the ALJ determines that the plaintiff can do so, then the plaintiff is not disabled.

Section 416.920(a)(4) sets out the five questions an ALJ asks, in order, when determining whether a claimant is disabled.

Dominguez v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-11(a)(4)

In order to determine whether a Plaintiff is disabled, the ALJ considers the following five questions in order: (1) Is the Plaintiff presently unemployed? (2) Does the Plaintiff have a severe impairment? (3) Does the impairment meet or medically equal one of a list of specific impairments enumerated in the regulations? (4) Is the Plaintiff unable to perform her former occupation? and (5) Is the Plaintiff unable to perform any other work? 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4).

Section 416.920(a)(1) requires disability claims to be evaluated through a sequential five-step process, including determining at step three whether an impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment.

O'Malley · filed 2025-12-05(a)(1)

To implement that definition, the Social Security Administration has developed a five-step evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(1). The steps proceed sequentially: ... Step Three. Does the mental or physical impairment appear on an enumerated list (called “listings”)? If not, is it nonetheless medically equal to one of those listings? ... Here, the ALJ correctly recognized at step three that he was required to “consider listing 11.02 in conjunction with SSR 19–4p” to evaluate Carolyn’s migraines. (R. at 35.) Yet immediately after doing so, the ALJ observed that Carolyn did not suffer from “generalized tonic-clonic seizures” or “dyscognitive seizures.” (R. at 35.) He then concluded that Carolyn’s migraine condition did not meet or equal a listing. (R. at 35.) That was error.

Sections 416.920(d) and (e) require the ALJ to evaluate listing equivalence at step three and, if the claimant does not meet or equal a listing, assess residual functional capacity with all resulting functional limitations at step four.

Spencer · filed 2026-05-27(d), (e)

The Commissioner must follow a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). ... If the impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a disabling impairment as set forth in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of Regulation No. 4 (the “Listings”), and satisfies the durational requirement, the claimant is entitled to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). ... Here, although the ALJ found at step two of the sequential analysis that plaintiff’s migraine headaches constituted a severe impairment, Dkt. #5, p. 31, he made no mention of them at step three. Dkt. #5, pp. 31-34. ... However, as plaintiff argues, these restrictions do not address many of the limitations in functioning that may occur once a migraine headache begins, as set forth in SSR 19-4p. ... “In sum, the ALJ erred at step three by not addressing migraine headaches, [and], while the ALJ purported to do that at step four, this Court still cannot conclude that the step-three error was harmless because the ALJ did not consider the limitations in functioning associated with [plaintiff’s] headaches.”

Section 416.920 establishes a sequential evaluation process for disability claims, under which a claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work at the final step.

Richardson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-08(a), (g)

The Social Security Administration, in order to regularize the adjudicative process, promulgated the detailed regulations currently in effect. These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). Under this process, the ALJ must determine, in sequence, the following: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment, i.e., one that significantly limits the ability to perform work-related functions; (3) whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; and, (4) whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his or her prior work, step five of the evaluation requires the ALJ to decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of the claimant’s age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140–42 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).

Section 416.920(a)(4) provides a five-step process for determining disability, including whether a severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and, if not, whether it prevents past or other work.

Sinin v. Dhs, 03-5735 (2005) · filed 2005-01-28(a)(4)

In Rhode Island, the DHS determines whether individuals are eligible for benefits by applying Social Security guidelines promulgated at 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.901-416.998. A five-part inquiry is employed in each case: 1. Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity? 2. If not, is the impairment severe? 3. If severe, does it meet or equal an impairment listed in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) regulations? 4. If it does not meet or equal SSI regulations, does the impairment prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work? 5. Considering age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity, does the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing other work in the national economy? 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). ... Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, this Court reverses the DHS decision with respect to step three of the evaluation process, and directs the agency to enter a finding that the plaintiff's condition meets the requisite level of impairment at that stage.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(ii) requires a claimant's severe impairment to satisfy the twelve-month duration requirement at the second step of the disability evaluation.

Ribeiro v. Barnhart · filed 2005-10-04(a)(4)(ii)

The central issue is whether the appellant showed that her mental impairment satisfied the twelve-month duration requirement. ... Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that she did not.

Section 416.920(b) requires a claimant to be found not disabled at step one when the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity during the period under review.

Dukes v. Barnhart · filed 2006-02-07(b)

Step one of the test calls for the ALJ to determine if the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity during the time the application is being reviewed. If the claimant is so engaged, then he is determined to be not disabled and the analysis is concluded. See Comstock v. Chater, 91 F.3d 1143, 1145 (8th Cir. 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b).

Section 416.920(b) requires the SSA to first determine whether a claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.

Wells v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-07-21(b)

The Social Security regulations set forth a five-step sequential evaluation for adjudicating claims for disability insurance and supplemental security income. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). In the course of the evaluation, the SSA first considers whether a claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). ... Here, the record reveals that, in determining that Wells was not disabled, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) applied the correct legal standard and that determination was supported by substantial evidence. Wells has not engaged in substantial gainful employment since August 15, 2004, and while Wells did suffer from a severe impairment — namely, asthma and reactive airway disease secondary to environmental allergens — this was not a type of impairment listed in or equal to one listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1.

Section 416.920(b) makes work activity the first step in the SSI disability evaluation, but that step is skipped in an age-18 redetermination.

Jackson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-17(b)

The first step, which considers the applicant’s employment, does not apply to age-18 redeterminations, so the ALJ proceeded to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 416.987(b); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b); [10-1] at 72.

Section 416.920 establishes a sequential disability evaluation in which step one asks whether the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity; a finding of substantial gainful activity ends the analysis with a finding of non-disability.

Blacktongue v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-25(a)(4)(i)

At step one of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ considers whether a claimant has been gainfully employed (“substantial gainful activity” or “SGA”) since the alleged disability onset date. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. Generally, the primary consideration is whether plaintiff has average earnings above the level ordinarily considered to be SGA. § 416.974(b). ... A finding of SGA at step one results in a finding of non-disability and the sequential analysis need go no further. § 416.920(a)(4)(i).

Section 416.920 makes substantial gainful activity the first-step disability inquiry; the court held that the ALJ erred by failing to address whether the claimant’s 2018 work was an unsuccessful work attempt before finding him engaged in substantial gainful activity.

McIntosh v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-14(a)(4)(i), (b)

A claimant is not disabled at step one if he engages in SGA. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(i), 416.920(b). If a claimant’s earned wages meet or exceed the amounts the agency calculates as SGA, then the earnings create a rebuttable presumption that the claimant is not disabled during the periods he worked at that level. 20 C.F.R. § 416.974; Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 515 (9th Cir. 2001); see also POMS DI 10501.015 (listing the amounts). An unsuccessful work attempt is an exception to the SGA rule. 20 C.F.R. § 416.974(a)(1). Work performed during an unsuccessful work attempt will not show that a claimant can perform SGA. 20 C.F.R. § 416.974(c). ... Here, there is evidence to support a finding that Plaintiff’s work in 2018 qualifies as an unsuccessful work attempt despite evidence showing that his earnings exceeded SGA levels, See Tr. 200 (showing earnings for $8,099.00): (1) Plaintiff did not work for three years prior to 2018, Tr. 199-200; (2) the work lasted only four months, Tr. 312 (from June 14, 2018 to September 28, 2018); and (3) Plaintiff alleged that he stopped working due to his impairments, Tr. 54. Therefore, there is evidence in the record to support an unsuccessful work attempt, and the ALJ’s failure to address this at step one is an error.

At step one, a claimant who is performing substantial gainful activity is found not disabled.

McDuffie-Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-26(b)

A finding at step one that a claimant is performing SGA means the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b).

Section 416.920(b) directs that a claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity is not disabled at step one.

Stickelmeyer v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-19(b)

An individual who is engaged in “substantial gainful activity” is not disabled. ... An individual earning more than a certain amount each month is presumed to be engaged in substantial gainful activity. ... The monthly earnings threshold for 2020 was $1,260. ... $4,179.08 translates to earnings of $1,044.77 per month, under the $1,260 monthly threshold. For that reason, the ALJ erred by finding Mr. S. earned over the monthly threshold for this period. ... However, the ALJ’s error is harmless as it continued with the five-step evaluation process, and the erroneous finding was inconsequential to the ultimate non-disability determination.

Section 416.920(b) makes a person engaged in substantial gainful work activity ineligible for disability benefits, regardless of whether the work is compensated.

United States v. Cline · filed 2009-06-09(b)

An individual is not eligible for DIB if he is engaged in substantial gainful work activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). ... Whether and how he was compensated is irrelevant -- the operative facts are that he was engaged in significant physical or mental activity that is usually done for pay or profit, thereby making him ineligible for DIB payments, and that he failed to disclose this activity.

At the third step, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) asks whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or is equivalent in severity to a listed impairment; a claimant with such an impairment is considered disabled.

Conner v. Barnhart · filed 2006-07-17(a)(4)(iii)

Under the third step, the ALJ asks whether the claimant has an impairment equivalent to one listed in appendix 1, sub-part P, part 404 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. If the claimant has a listed impairment or an impairment equivalent in severity to a listed impairment, the claimant is considered disabled.

At step three, a claimant is automatically found disabled if the claimant suffers from an impairment listed in the Social Security regulations.

Anderson v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-01(d)

Under step three of the sequential evaluation process, a finding that the claimant suffers from one of the listed impairments in the social security regulations results in an automatic finding of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, an adjudicator must consider whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

Calzada v. ASTURE · filed 2010-11-17(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step of the analytic framework established by the Social Security Act, an ALJ is charged with considering whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is so severe as to meet or equal one of the impairments listed in Appendix One of 20 CFR § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). ... 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. In this case, the ALJ committed legal error by failing to make, or at least articulate, this required assessment.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires evaluation at step three of whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and § 416.920(d) provides for disability when it does.

Resendes v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-17(a)(4)(iii), (d)

The ALJ’s treatment of Resendes’ headaches in his opinion is puzzling. First, he completely abandons any analysis of Resendes’ headaches at Step Three. Specifically, he failed to analyze whether Resendes’ headaches meet or equal an impairment listed in the regulations, as he did for all of her other impairments that he found to be severe.

At step three, a claimant must prove that her impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals all of the criteria of a listed impairment; an inadequately explained step-three finding is harmless when the claimant cannot make that showing.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-31(d)

As this is a third-step inquiry under § 416.920, it is the claimant who bears the burden of proving that her impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listing. ... “For a claimant to show that [ her] impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” ... Without those required showings, plaintiff has not proven that her substantial rights have been affected and any error on the part of the ALJ at step three of the § 416.920 analysis was harmless.

At step three, an impairment that meets the criteria for a listed impairment results in a finding of disability, and the claimant bears the burden of proving the listing criteria.

Hernández v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-10-17(d)

Under step three of the sequential evaluation process, a finding that the claimant suffers from one of the listed impairments in the social security regulations results in an automatic finding of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). ... In sum, I find the ALJ’s step three determination supported by substantial evidence.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and satisfies the duration requirement; failure to properly consider medical equivalence requires remand.

Maziarka v. Colvin · filed 2013-11-20(a)(4)(iii)

The Act sets forth a five-step test for determining whether a claimant qualifies for SSI benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is performing a substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)®. If the claimant is engaging in a substantial gainful activity, the claimant is not disabled. Id. Second, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments that meets a twelve-month duration requirement or is expected to result in death. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(h), 416.909. If the claimant does not have a severe impairment, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). Third, the ALJ must consider the severity of the claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in the Act, and meets the duration requirement, then the claimant is considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d). ... The ALJ’s failure to consider whether Plaintiffs impairments equaled any relevant listing warrants a remand. On remand, the ALJ should seek a qualifying medical opinion on the issue of medical equivalence and should explicitly address medical equivalence in his step three determination.

At step three of the disability evaluation, a claimant must show that the claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment to establish disability.

Peterson v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2014-01-21(a)(4)(iii)

Peterson must satisfy his burden of proving his disability by showing that his impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 354 (6th Cir. 2001).

At step three, § 416.920(d) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment; meeting a listing ends the sequential inquiry in favor of disability.

Garcia v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-06(d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s impairments to determine whether they meet or medically equal any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.1999).

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires comparing the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments with the listed impairments; if it is at least as severe as the relevant listing and has lasted at least twelve months, the claimant is deemed disabled and the inquiry ends.

Garcia v. Comm. of Social Security · filed 2014-09-23(a)(4)(iii)

At the third step, the ALJ again considers the severity of the impairment or combination of impairments by comparing it to the listings in 20 C.F.R. § 404, subpart P, appendix 1. Id. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d). If the impairment or combination of impairments is at least as severe as the relevant listing, and has lasted at least twelve months, then the claimant is deemed disabled, and the inquiry ends; otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to the next step. Id.

At step three, when an impairment meets the duration requirement and meets or equals a listed impairment, the claimant is found disabled without considering age, education, or work experience.

State, Department of Health & Social Services, Division of Public Assistance v. Gross · filed 2015-04-24(d)

“If you have an impairment(s) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment(s), we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.”

At step three, a claimant is disabled if the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment.

Mathews v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-21(d)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ determines whether a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meet or equals one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Where a claimant’s impairment or impairments meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1, the claimant is per se disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, the sequential evaluation asks, based solely on medical evidence, whether the claimant has an impairment that meets a listed impairment; if so, the claimant is considered disabled without assessing vocational factors.

Stephens v. Colvin · filed 2016-08-02(a)(4)(iii)

The inquiry at step three is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment noted in the Listings in Appendix 1. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant has one of the listed impairments, the Secretary will consider the claimant disabled without looking at vocational factors, arid the claimant will automatically be entitled to benefits. Id. at §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).

At step three, the Commissioner determines whether a claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment severe enough to preclude substantial gainful activity.

Hase v. Colvin · filed 2016-09-19(a)(4)(iii)

At Step Three the Commissioner must determine whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal one of the listed impairments and are so severe that they preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

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

Wilson v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-01(a)(4)(iii)

As stated, an ALJ’s task at step three is to determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is of a severity sufficient to meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in the Appendix. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... Contrary to Plaintiffs assertions, SSR 96-6p does not “impose an affirmative duty on an ALJ to seek out a medical opinion on the equivalency issue.” Walker v. Colvin, 2016 WL 491724, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2016). Rather, it simply instructs an ALJ on what must be done with an existing finding by a physician or psychologist designated by the Commissioner on the equivalence issue: receive it into the record and treat it like any other medical opinion from a non-examining source. Id. ... Accordingly, this objection is overruled.

For adult disability claims, step three requires the impairment to meet or equal a listed impairment; satisfying that requirement ends the sequential evaluation with a finding of disability.

Burton v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-30(a)(4)(iii), (d)

Once Burton turned eighteen years old, a different test applied. Id. § 416.924(f). Instead of the three-step process applicable to children, a five-step sequential process governs the inquiry to determine whether an adult is disabled. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The first two steps are the same as the child test. Compare 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(i), (ii) with id. §§ 416.924(b), (c). The third step is different. Unlike the test for a child, the adult test does not apply a functional equivalence measurement. The claimant must show that his impairment meets or equals a listed impairment. A functionally equivalent impairment does not qualify. See Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 611 (3d Cir. 2014); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If he has an impairment meeting or equaling a listed impairment, the claimant is considered per se disabled, ending the inquiry. Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 119 (3d Cir. 2002); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) governs evaluation of whether an impairment meets or equals the Listing criteria; it does not govern the step-two severity determination.

Hayes v. Berryhill · filed 2018-01-09(a)(4)(iii)

The ALJ did not err at step two in finding that Hayes’s sleep apnea was non-severe without evaluating this impairment as specified under section 3.10 of the Listing of Impairments because section 3.10 pertains to the evaluation of disability at step three, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), and was therefore inapplicable to the ALJ’s finding at step two.

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

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-27(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... Even if an argument was set forth regarding the Paragraph A criteria for the listings, the evidence does not demonstrate that Plaintiff meets the criteria for any of the listings. ... As the Paragraph A criteria is not met for any listing, any error on the ALJ’s part regarding the Paragraph B criteria would be harmless.

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment, and a claimant who meets the listed criteria must be found disabled.

O'Shea v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-12-31(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). ... Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s impairments and combinations of impairments did not meet or equal any listings, including Listings 6.05, 9.00 and 2.02. Tr. 18. The ALJ did not consider Listing 6.06, the listing for nephrotic syndrome. ... Here, the record is not clear as to whether Plaintiff satisfies the Paragraph B criteria of the listing. It is the ALJ’s role to consider the evidence, state an interpretation thereof, and make findings accordingly. Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041. As the case is being remanded on other grounds, on remand, the ALJ is instructed to reconsider the relevant listings, including Listing 6.06, and to call a medical expert if necessary to address whether Plaintiff’s conditions meet or equal a listing.

At step three, an impairment or combination of impairments must meet or medically equal a listed impairment for disability to be found without considering vocational factors.

Gay v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(d)

However, Plaintiff does not actually argue that she meets a Listing and Plaintiff provides no authority for the proposition that an ALJ must not review the Listings separately. In addition to the ALJ’s discussion of the medical evidence in light of the Listing requirements, the ALJ explicitly stated that Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments.” Tr. at 18. This statement suffices to show that the ALJ considered the effect of the combination of Plaintiff’s impairments.

At step three, a claimant must establish that an impairment meets every criterion of a listed impairment or medically equals one; showing only some criteria or making a conclusory equivalence assertion is insufficient.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(d)

The Listing of Impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 describes impairments for each of the major body parts that are deemed of sufficient severity to prevent a person from performing gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. At step three of the sequential process, it is the claimant’s burden to bring forth evidence to establish that she meets or equals a listed impairment. See, e.g., Evans v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 820 F.2d 161, 164 (6th Cir.1987) (per curiam); Lett v. Colvin, 2015 WL 853425, at * 16 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2015). A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to “meet” the listing. Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2009). “An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990).

Section 416.920(d) treats a claimant as disabled at step three when the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment and the durational requirement is met.

Hathcox v. Saul · filed 2020-04-01(d)

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). ... Though the ALJ failed to mention Listing 12.05, the B criteria are the same for each of the mental listings. Because the ALJ’s findings did not amount to listing-level severity for the other mental listings, they did not reach listing level for 12.05B either.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires the Commissioner to find a claimant disabled at step three when the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Barela v. Saul · filed 2020-04-29(a)(4)(iii)

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

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

Kelley v. Saul · filed 2020-05-13(a)(4)(iii)

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). ... Here, the ALJ considered whether Plaintiff met the criteria for listings 12.04, 12.05, 12.06, 12.08, and 12.15. Tr. 18. The ALJ found that Plaintiff did not meet either the Paragraph B or Paragraph C criteria for the listing of mental impairments. Tr. 19. However, the ALJ’s consideration of the Listing of Impairments is based on the ALJ’s evaluation of evidence that the ALJ has been instructed to reconsider on remand. Accordingly, the ALJ is also instructed to reconsider the Listing of Impairments on remand.

At step three, the Commissioner compares an impairment with the listed impairments, and a claimant is disabled if the impairment meets or is at least as severe as an enumerated impairment.

Alderson v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-06-02(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s impairment to severe impairments recognized by the Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude a person from engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment is as severe or more severe than one of the enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled and award benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Section 416.920(d) treats a claimant as disabled at step three when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, without requiring consideration of age, education, or work experience.

Edgar v. Saul · filed 2020-10-27(d)

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

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) requires an ALJ at step three to determine whether the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, alone or in combination, meet or medically equal a listed impairment.

KOON-BRANCH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-10-28(a)(4)(iii)

At step three, an ALJ considers whether the combination of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments meets or equals the severity of one of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

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

(SS) Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-30(d)

An affirmative finding at step three results in a determination of disability without proceeding to steps four or five. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d) (“If you have an impairment(s) which meets the duration requirement and is listed in appendix 1 or is equal to a listed impairment(s), we will find you disabled without considering your age, education, and work experience.”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927, 416.929 (noting that the ALJ proceeds through the steps and stops upon reaching a dispositive finding that the claimant is or is not disabled); Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (“If a claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals a condition outlined in the ‘Listing of Impairments,’ then the claimant is presumed disabled at step three, and the ALJ need not make any specific finding as to his or her ability to perform past relevant work or any other jobs.”)

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

Vickers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-02(a)(4)(iii)

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

At step three of the sequential disability evaluation, a claimant is disabled if a severe impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, and the claimant bears the burden of proving that requirement with specific medical findings or equivalent evidence.

Austin v. Commissioner of Social Security · 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. Johnson v. Colvin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50941, *7 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 14, 2014) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Buress v. Sec’y of Health and Human Serv’s., 835 F.2d 139, 140 (6th Cir. 1987)). A claimant “must present specific medical findings that satisfy the various tests listed in the description of the applicable impairment or present medical evidence which describes how the impairment has such equivalency.” Thacker v. SSA, 93 Fed. Appx. 725, 728 (6th Cir. 2004). “If . . . the record ‘raises a substantial question as to whether the claimant could qualify as disabled’ under a listing, the ALJ should discuss that listing.” Sheeks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Adm., 544 Fed. Appx. 639, 642 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2013) (citing Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 925 (6th Cir. 1990)).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iii) provides that a claimant is disabled at step three when the claimant's impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment, and the claimant bears the burden of establishing that showing.

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). ... Hayes has not shown how the evidence upon which he relies raises a substantial question that his seizure disorder met or equaled Listing 11.02. ... Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that Hayes has not demonstrated that reversal and remand is required for further evaluation of his seizure disorder at Step Three.

At step three, § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) treats a claimant as disabled when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and the court upheld the finding that Goudeau’s impairment did not meet the listing.

Goudeau v. Saul · filed 2020-11-30(a)(4)(iii)

Goudeau argues that the ALJ erred in not finding him per se disabled at step three of the sequential process. If a claimant’s impairment meets the criteria of one of the presumptively disabling impairments listed in the regulations, the claimant is considered disabled, regardless of age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), (d). ... Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Goudeau is not presumptively disabled under Listing 12.05B.

Section 416.920 requires a five-step disability evaluation, and at step three a claimant is disabled only when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; satisfying only some listing criteria is insufficient.

Pierce v. Saul · filed 2021-05-13(a)(4)(iii), (d)

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

At step three, § 416.920 requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a listed impairment; meeting or equaling a listing establishes disability, but satisfying only some criteria is insufficient.

Beavers v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(a)(4)(iii), (d)

First, if a claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is considered disabled per se and is awarded benefits. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(d); Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119. However, to qualify for benefits by showing that an impairment, or combination of impairments, is equivalent to a listed impairment, a plaintiff bears the burden of presenting “medical findings equivalent in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar impairment.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990) (citing 20 C.F.R. §416.920(d); SSR 83-19 at 91). An impairment, no matter how severe, that meets or equals only some of the criteria for a listed impairment is not sufficient. Id.

At Step 3, an ALJ must determine whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if it does, the claimant is disabled per se, and a conclusory, unexplained determination is inadequate for meaningful judicial review.

Zier v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-17(a)(4)(iii), (d)

At Step 3 of this sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether, singly or in combination, a claimant’s ailments and impairments are so severe that they are per se disabling and entitle the claimant to benefits. As part of this Step 3 disability evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant’s alleged impairment is equivalent to a number of listed impairments, commonly referred to as listings, that are acknowledged as so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); ... First, if a claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is considered disabled per se and is awarded benefits. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(d); ... On this score, however, it is also clearly established that the ALJ’s treatment of this issue must go beyond a summary conclusion, since a bare conclusion “is beyond meaningful judicial review.” ... However, when “the ALJ's conclusory statement [at Step 3] is . . . beyond meaningful judicial review,” a remand is required to adequately articulate the reasons for rejecting the claim at this potentially outcome-determinative stage.

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; meeting or equaling one results in disability and benefits.

Lapish v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-02(a)(4)(iii), (d)

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

Section 416.920 requires a five-step sequential evaluation and provides that a claimant is disabled at step three when an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.

Travis · filed 2025-12-09(a)(4)(iii) (d)

In making this determination, the ALJ follows a five-step evaluation. The ALJ must sequentially determine whether the claimant: (1) is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) has a severe impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) is able to do his or her past relevant work; and (5) is able to do any other work, considering his or her age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity (“RFC”).

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Travo v. Saul · filed 2020-07-10(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five, the ALJ must determine whether a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy which the plaintiff can perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

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

Garcia v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-16(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 final step to consider a claimant’s qualifications and whether jobs matching them exist in the national economy.

Boylan v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-24(g)

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

At step five, the Commissioner must first assess the claimant's job qualifications and then determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

McGregor v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-12(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 consider the claimant's physical ability, age, education, and work experience and determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Sweet v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-20(g)

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

Section 416.920(g) requires the disability determination's final step to assess the claimant's qualifications and then determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Hamilton v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-12(g)

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

At step five, the regulation requires a claimant to be found disabled unless the Commissioner shows that a significant number of jobs the claimant can perform exist in the national economy.

Allino v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-19(a)(4)(v)

Specifically under step five, which is at issue here, a claimant is disabled unless the Commissioner meets her burden and shows that there exist a significant number of jobs in the national economy that claimant can do. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v),(g); 416.960(c); ... I find that 350 jobs in the region of the State of California is not a significant number. ... The availability of 3200 jobs in the nation is also not significant. ... I conclude that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that a significant number of jobs plaintiff can perform exist on either the regional level or the national level.

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

Blakesley v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-17(d)

At step five of the disability evaluation process, the ALJ must show there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy the claimant can perform. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d), (e). ... Therefore, the number of addressor jobs available in the economy cannot be considered significant enough for the Commissioner to have met her burden at step five. The Court finds that, crediting Eather’s and Comrie’s opinions as true, Blakesley would have to be found disabled because there is not a significant number of jobs available that she could perform.

At step five, § 416.920(g) requires identifying jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform despite the claimant's limitations.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-12(g)

At step five, the ALJ has the burden to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that claimant can perform despite their identified limitations. ... 128 Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).

At step five, Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires the ALJ to consider relevant vocational factors, including the claimant’s age, when determining whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.

Vazquez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-28(a)(4)(v)

To make this determination an ALJ considers relevant vocational factors, including a claimant’s age. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.963(a); Stout v. Astrue, No. 10-4466, 2012 WL 1020179, at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2012).

At step five, the Commissioner must show that a claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy before finding the claimant not disabled.

Ganoe v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-26(a)(4)(v)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ engages in a five-step sequential analysis as required under 20 C.F.R. sections 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v). Specifically under step five, which is at issue here, a claimant is disabled unless the Commissioner meets her burden and shows that there exist a significant number of jobs in the national economy that claimant can do. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v),(g); 416.960(c); see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.1999) (the Commissioner bears the burden of showing the existence of significant jobs).

At step five, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires determining whether the claimant can adjust to other work and whether significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy, and permits reliance on vocational-expert testimony when the record supports the assumptions and the testimony accurately reflects the claimant’s limitations.

Shiwbodh v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). “An ALJ may make this determination either by applying the Medical Vocational Guidelines or by adducing testimony of a vocational expert.” McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146, 151 (2d Cir. 2014). “An ALJ may rely on a vocational expert's testimony regarding a hypothetical as long as ‘there is substantial record evidence to support the assumption[s] upon which the vocational expert based his opinion,’ . . . and accurately reflect the limitations and capabilities of the claimant involved.”

Section 416.920(a)(4) uses a five-step process and requires, at step five, determining whether the claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy given the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

Viverette v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(a)(4)

To decide whether a person is disabled, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) uses a five-step sequential process, asking whether (1) he is engaged in substantial gainful activity, (2) he has a severe impairment or combination of impairments, (3) the impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the severity of anything in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App’x 1, (4) he can perform any of his past relevant work given his RFC, and (5) there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy he can perform given his RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4).

At step five, § 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires the Commissioner to determine whether significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Melendez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-10(a)(4)(v)

At Step Five, the Commissioner must determine that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 416.920 requires an ALJ to use a five-step sequential analysis and places on the Commissioner at step five the burden to show that the claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Goode v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-28(a)(4)(v)

To make a disability determination, an ALJ must engage in a five-step sequential analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(1). A claimant bears the burden at the first four steps, but the burden shifts at step five, which asks whether the claimant can perform a job that exists in significant numbers in the national economy given her vocational profile. See Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v).

Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires the step-five disability analysis to consider whether the claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy given the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity.

(SS) Carson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether there are jobs available for the claimant in the national economy considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). ... In the present case, the vocational expert testified that there are 18,352 jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. After a comparison with other cases, discussed above, the Court finds that the ALJ erred in determining that 18,352 jobs in the national economy is a significant number of jobs. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ erred at step five by determining that there are a significant number of cases in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform.

At step five, the regulation directs the ALJ to determine whether the claimant can adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Vickers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(a)(4)(v) and (g)

Rather, the Administration’s regulations and Sixth Circuit case law require the ALJ to examine jobs available in the national economy at Step 5. See Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241; 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v) and (g). Thus, it was proper for the ALJ to base her findings on the national economy standard.

Section 416.920(g) places the burden on the Commissioner at step five to show that a claimant with the relevant background and RFC can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Nunley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-10(g)

At step five, the Commissioner has the burden to show that, given a claimant’s background and RFC, the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).

At step five, the Commissioner must show that jobs exist in substantial numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform despite the claimant’s limitations.

(SS)Henry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-16(g)

At Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner “to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that [a] claimant can perform despite [his] identified limitations.” Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). At this step, the ALJ considers potential occupations that the claimant may be able to perform. Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 2015); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.966.

Section 416.920 requires the sequential evaluation to reach step five when a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, and permits a finding of no disability when the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience.

STEVENSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-04-23(a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v)

An ALJ reaches step five in the disability evaluation process if the ALJ determines that the claimant is unable to perform past relevant work based on his RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). At step five, the ALJ will find a claimant is not disabled if the claimant is able to perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy in light of her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v); 20 C.F.R. § 416.960(c). ... The VE testified that there were 43,000 hand packager positions nationally. (Tr. 70). This number constitutes a significant number of jobs. ... Accordingly, the hand packager job alone provides substantial evidence for the ALJ’s step five finding. ... As such, even if the Court were to assume that there was a conflict between her RFC and the social requirement for the merchandise deliverer and patient transporter jobs, the error would be harmless as Plaintiff could also perform the job of hand packager—which exists in sufficient numbers.

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

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

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

Section 416.920(g) requires the Commissioner, at step five, to determine whether a claimant can perform other work considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and experience, and benefits are denied if such work exists in significant numbers.

Ray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-12(g)

5) If the claimant cannot perform his past relevant work, the ALJ determines if he can perform other work, in light of his RFC, age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f), (g). If so, then he is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). A claimant is only entitled to receive benefits if he cannot perform any alternative gainful activity. See id. ... To satisfy her burden at Step 5, Defendant must prove that there is a "significant number" of jobs available; however, a "'significant number' of jobs is 'fairly minimal.'" ... The Court is therefore not convinced, based on the evidence in the record, that the Commissioner has met her burden and demonstrated that there exists a significant number of jobs available to Plaintiff in the national economy; and, accordingly, the Court remands this case to the Commissioner for further consideration, in particular regional numbers or local availability of the job titles on which the ALJ relied to reach her conclusion that there were a significant number of jobs in the economy that Plaintiff can perform.

At step five, the regulation requires considering whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy in light of her residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience.

Cortez v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-17(a)(4)(v)

If the claimant cannot perform this work, the fifth and final step in the process determines whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy considering her residual functional capacity and age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(a)(4)(v); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987). ... In sum, the number of jobs that the ALJ found available nationwide in this case is sufficient, even without including the mail clerk positions, for a finding that there are jobs that Plaintiff can perform in the national economy.

At step five, the Commissioner must determine whether a claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant's age, education, and work history.

Bresnahan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20(a)(4)(v)

At step five, the ALJ had to decide whether Plaintiff could perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy given his age, education, and work history. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v).

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

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

As previously noted, at step five, the Commissioner has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant can “perform other work that ‘exists in significant numbers in the national economy,’ considering the claimant's [RFC], age, education, and work experience.” Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 635 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.960(c)(2), 416.1429).

At Step Five, the regulation places on the Commissioner the burden of showing that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

BROWN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-03-10(a)(4)(v)

However, although the vocational expert in each such case identified only a single occupation that the claimant could perform, he or she set forth a specific number of such jobs that would be available. Here, the VE merely stated that the only position that would fit within the relevant hypothetical was that of surveillance system monitor, without indicating how many jobs would be available either locally or in the national economy. ... The Court cannot merely assume that the number of jobs that the VE might have identified would be sufficient to constitute work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, especially considering that the Commissioner has the burden of showing that Plaintiff is capable of performing such work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v) & (g), 416.960(c). Hence, remand is necessary.

At step five, § 416.920(g) permits a finding of not disabled when a claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Debruzzi v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-25(g)

Although the document preparer and addresser positions do not exist in significant nationwide numbers, the ALJ has nonetheless met his step-five burden by finding that an individual with Plaintiff’s RFC could perform the job of escort vehicle driver with more than 31,000 jobs nationwide. Zavalin, 778 F.3d at 845 (9th Cir. 2015); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g).

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

Tirado-Negron v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-29(a)(4)(v)

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

Section 416.920(a)(4)(v) requires determining at the fifth step whether a claimant can perform other work in the national economy considering residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience.

Garcia v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-28(a)(4)(v)

If the claimant cannot perform this work, the fifth and final step in the process determines whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy considering their residual functional capacity and age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(a)(4)(v); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987). ... At step five of the sequential analysis, the ALJ has the burden to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform despite his identified limitations. ... In sum, the Court cannot find that ALJ’s decision regarding the number of alternative occupations is supported by substantial evidence. Rather, having found Plaintiff’s rebuttal evidence to be probative, significant, and inadequately addressed by the ALJ, remand is required for the agency to reconsider the step-five finding that Plaintiff can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy.

Section 416.920(g) requires the ALJ at Step Five to determine whether a claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy; if not, the claimant is disabled, and the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that such jobs exist.

Rodrigues Troncao, Jr. v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-16(g)

At Step Five, the ALJ considers whether, despite a Social Security claimant’s limitations, there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g); Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999). If there are not a significant number of such jobs in the national economy, the claimant is considered disabled and entitled to disability benefits. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099. It is the Commissioner’s burden, through the ALJ, to demonstrate that such jobs exist. Id.

At the final step, the ALJ determines whether a claimant with the RFC can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy; if not, the claimant is disabled.

Buchanan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-18(g)

The Social Security disability evaluation has five steps. The current dispute only concerns the final step, at which the ALJ considers whether there is a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given her residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g); Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999). If there is not a significant number, the claimant is considered disabled and entitled to disability benefits. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099. It is the Commissioner’s burden, through the ALJ, to demonstrate that such jobs exist. Id. ... Even discounting the laboratory equipment cleaner job due to conflict with Plaintiff’s RFC, the floor waxer and hand packager jobs alone represent a total of 183,000 positions in the national economy. That figure surely meets the Step Five requirement that there be a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform.

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

Preston · filed 2025-12-08(g)

At step five, the Commissioner has the burden to demonstrate that a claimant can perform other jobs which exist in significant numbers in the national economy, based on claimant’s age, education, and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). ... However, even if the Routing Clerk job were excluded from consideration, the remaining jobs of Office Helper and Photocopy Machine Operator would satisfy the “significant number” requirement, thus providing sufficient evidence for the ALJ’s step five finding. According to the VE’s testimony, the available number of jobs for each of these positions is 6,841 and 6,188 jobs, respectively. ... This equals 13,029 total jobs. ... Therefore, the Court finds the ALJ’s step five determination to be supported by substantial evidence.

At step five, the Commissioner must show that work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

Wells · filed 2026-03-16(a)(4)(v)

Fifth, if the claimant’s RFC as determined in Step Four will not allow the claimant to perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there is other work that the claimant can do, given the claimant’s RFC as determined at Step Four, and his age, education, and work experience. ... The Commissioner must prove not only that the claimant’s RFC will allow the claimant to make an adjustment to other work, but also that the other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. ... If the claimant can make an adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, then the Commissioner will find the claimant is not disabled. If the claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work, then the Commissioner will find that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). ... In sum, there were no unresolved conflicts between the DOT and the VE’s testimony. The VE’s testimony regarding jobs a person with Plaintiff’s RFC could perform, therefore, constituted substantial evidence on which the ALJ reasonably relied. Thus, the Commissioner met his Step Five burden of showing that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform.

At step five, the regulation's requirement that the claimant be able to perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy is satisfied by about 30,300 available jobs.

Wheeler · filed 2026-06-10(a)(4)(v)

So is 30,300 jobs in the national economy enough? Recall that at step five the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that “the claimant possesses the residual functional capacity to perform work that exists in a significant quantity in the national economy.” ... But the regulations do not define what “significant” means. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ has carried his step-five burden to show that Paula can perform about 30,000 jobs in the national economy. Unless and until the Seventh Circuit says otherwise, that is enough.

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

(SS) Senter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-11(g)

That is, the ALJ must consider potential occupations the claimant may be able to perform, based on the claimant’s RFC, age, education and work experience, and the information provided by the DOT and the VE. See id. at 846; Valentine v. Astrue, 574 F.3d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2009); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). ... Here, there remain three jobs which the ALJ found that Plaintiff can perform: Laundry Worker II with 28,500 jobs nationally Cleaner, Hospital with 25,200 jobs nationally; and Scrap Sorter with 47,300 jobs nationally. (AR 28.) These occupations total 101,000 jobs nationally, which is far above the 25,000 which the Ninth Circuit has found to be a significant number of jobs. Accordingly, the Court finds no error at Step 5 and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment shall be denied.

At step five, vocational evidence of a significant number of jobs the claimant can perform can support a finding of nondisability.

Justin N. v. Bisignano · filed 2025-10-01(g)

The vocational expert testified that such person could perform work as a lens inserter (11,000 jobs nationally), a bench assembler (12,500 jobs nationally), and jewelry preparer (10,000 jobs nationally). (AR 600-01). There is no dispute that this would constitute a significant number of jobs in the national economy, which would suffice to support the ALJ’s finding at step five.

Section 416.920(a)(4) does not require an ALJ to account for step-three findings when assessing residual functional capacity at step four.

Laswell v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-25(a)(4)

Again, however, because the ALJ was not required to account for his own step-three findings when fashioning the RFC at step four, there can be no similar error in this case by limiting the claimant to unskilled work for reasons otherwise explained in the RFC narrative.

Section 416.920(a)(4)(iv) makes residual functional capacity assessment relevant to evaluating adult disability claims, rather than the functional-equivalence domains used to evaluate children.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-02(a)(4)(iv)

Initially, the Court notes that Drs. Palomino and Putcha assessed the six functional domains relevant to the functional equivalence determination for children and did not provide an opinion on Plaintiff's residual mental functional capacity – a consideration only relevant to assessing adult disability claims. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.926a(b)(1).

Section 416.920(e) requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity before proceeding to the step-four determination of whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

McMinn v. Saul · filed 2020-07-10(e)

Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to use a residual functional capacity assessment at steps four and five, measuring the most the claimant can still do despite limitations based on the relevant evidence.

Patterson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-14(a)(4)(iv), (e)

At steps four and five, the ALJ uses the residual functional capacity assessment to evaluate whether any work is available for the claimant. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv)–(v). A claimant’s capacity in this context is defined as the most a claimant can still do despite his limitations and is based on an evaluation of the relevant evidence in the record. See id. §§ 416.920(e), 416.945(a)(1) & (a)(3).

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

LICHTSINN v. Astrue · filed 2010-01-29(e)

Before performing steps four and five, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) — what tasks the claimant can do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), 416.945(a). The RFC is then used during steps four and five to help determine what, if any, employment the claimant is capable of. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).

At step four, the ALJ must assess residual functional capacity using all relevant evidence, including the claimant’s symptoms and medical-source statements.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-04(a)(4)(iv)

The RFC assessment must be “based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, including information about the individual’s symptoms and any ‘medical source statements’ -- i.e., opinions about what the individual can still do despite his or her impairment(s)-- submitted by an individual’s treating source or other acceptable medical sources.”

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

Cordileone v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-07(e)

Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [his or her] limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The RFC must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), 416.945(a)(2); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p.

Section 416.920(e) requires the claimant’s residual functional capacity to be used in evaluating work capacity at steps four and five.

Calzo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-04(e)

The RFC is used to evaluate the claimant’s work capacity for steps four and five.

At step four, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity before deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work.

Grant v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-04-07(a)(4)(iv)

At step four of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). “[T]he ALJ is responsible for translating and incorporating clinical findings into a succinct RFC.” Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015). ... The ALJ committed reversible error by failing to incorporate into the RFC or provide explanation for rejecting Plaintiff’s treating and examining providers’ opinions regarding Plaintiff’s use of a cane for pain relief and balance while standing.

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ at Step Four to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

Sneed v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-14(e)

At Step Four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). ... The ALJ applied proper legal standards in determining that Sneed “require[d] weekly reinstruction on all job tasks (one time per week).” 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3); Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241. Here, the ALJ complied with the regulations by expressly considering all the evidence and all of Sneed’s symptoms in evaluating Sneed’s functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), 416.929(a); SSSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5; (Tr. 58-61).

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

Wold v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-22(e)

Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).

At step four, § 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to determine a claimant's residual functional capacity using all relevant medical and other evidence.

Sims v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-30(e)

At Step Four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). ... The ALJ applied proper legal standards in evaluating Sims’s RFC and the effects of his obesity. 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3); Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241. The ALJ complied with the regulations by expressly considering all of Sims’s severe and non-severe impairments in light of the medical and other evidence. (Tr. 18-21); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e); SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5.

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s residual functional capacity before deciding whether the claimant can perform past relevant work, considering all of the claimant’s impairments, including nonsevere impairments.

Salvas v. Saul · filed 2021-02-10(e)

Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [his or her] limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The RFC must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), 416.945(a)(2); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p.

Section 416.920(a)(3) requires the ALJ to consider medical source statements and all other case-record evidence when determining residual functional capacity, and § 416.920(f) requires consideration of age, education, past relevant work experience, and residual functional capacity at step five.

Lloyd v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-10(f), (a)(3)

In making a determination at step five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must consider a claimant's age, education, past relevant work experience, and RFC. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(f). ... The Administrative Law Judge makes this finding based on a consideration of medical source statements and all other evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3), 416.946(c) 404.1529, 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c).

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

Elliott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-26(e)

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

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ at step four to determine a claimant's residual functional capacity by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

Pupo v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-03(e)

Pupo’s third issue concerns Step Four of the sequential analysis, where the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). ... Similarly, here, although the ALJ stated he “considered all symptoms,” his decision demonstrates that he did not. The ALJ did not consider Pupo’s stress urinary incontinence when he conducted his RFC assessment. ... Like the ALJ in Schink, the ALJ here was required to consider all of Pupo’s impairments, severe or not, when evaluating her RFC.

At step four, § 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to determine the claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.

Duty v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-19(e)

At Step Four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). The RFC determination sets out an individual’s work-related abilities despite his or her limitations.

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity before making the step-four determination.

(SS) Gitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-06(e)

Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant’s RFC.

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity before making the step-four determination, considering all of the claimant’s impairments, including nonsevere impairments.

(SS) Carlos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-09(e)

Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e); ... The RFC must consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), 416.945(a)(2); ... Here, the ALJ did proceed with the disability inquiry; moreover, he plainly considered the Plaintiff’s diarrhea in his evaluation of the medical and nonmedical evidence to reach the RFC determination.

Section 416.920(e) requires the ALJ to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity before making the step-four determination.

(SS) Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-03(e)

Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e); Nowden v. Berryhill, No. EDCV 17-00584-JEM, 2018 WL 1155971, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018).