Cynthia M. Dykes v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Cynthia M. Dykes v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
127 citation events (124 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bauer v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:20-cv-00358 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 1, 2021)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 867 Requirement for medical evidence supporting residual functional capacity finding87 citing casesALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, including “some medical evidence” in the documented medical history, and the fact that at least one (1) physician had released the claimant to light duty work1 citing court put it this way · 80 listed here
  • Myers, No. 4:24-cv-01044 (E.D. Mo. May 19, 2026).
    Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065 , 1069 n. 5 (8th Cir. 2000). “[T]he record must include some medical evidence that supports the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding.” Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000).
  • Rondeau v. Bisignano, No. 0:24-cv-02049 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2025).
    “Some medical evidence must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace.” Id. (quoting Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8t…
  • Bajalia v. Bisignano, No. 0:24-cv-02467 (D. Minn. July 16, 2025).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claiman…
  • Holmes v. Bisignano, No. 0:24-cv-03056 (D. Minn. June 11, 2025).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. at 591 . (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of th…
  • Krenzelok v. Dudek, No. 0:23-cv-03883 (D. Minn. Mar. 26, 2025).
    Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (explaining that “some medical evidence” must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC).
  • Yang v. Dudek, No. 0:24-cv-00563 (D. Minn. Mar. 3, 2025).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. at 591 . (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of th…
  • Oudom v. Dudek, No. 0:23-cv-03864 (D. Minn. Feb. 21, 2025).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claiman…
  • Groce v. O'Malley, No. 0:24-cv-00947 (D. Minn. Sept. 4, 2024).
    Baldwin v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 549, 556 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(5)(A) (“[T]there must be medical signs and findings . . . which show the existenc…
  • Wedner v. O'Malley, No. 0:23-cv-02010 (D. Minn. July 2, 2024).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Eichelberger, 390 F.3d at 591 . (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the…
  • Clark v. O'Malley, No. 0:23-cv-00600 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2024).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claiman…
Show 70 more citing cases
  • Stoufer v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r, No. 2:22-cv-02140 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 11, 2023).
    The RFC must, however, be supported by “some medical evidence,” and the ALJ should obtain evidence that addresses the claimant’s “ability to function in the workplace.” Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000); Nevland v. Apfel, 2…
  • Marriott v. Kijakazi, No. 6:22-cv-03197 (W.D. Mo. May 1, 2023).
    Understandably, then, “some medical evidence,” Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s “…
  • Anderson v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r, No. 3:22-cv-03004 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 23, 2023).
    The RFC must, however, be supported by “some medical evidence,” and the ALJ should obtain evidence that addresses the claimant's “ability to function in the workplace.” Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000); Nevland v. Apfel, 2…
  • Lee v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:22-cv-00010 (D.N.D. Nov. 15, 2022).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that a “claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.” Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir.2001). “[S]ome medical evidence” must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, Dykes v.…
  • Taggart v. Kijakazi, No. 2:21-cv-04109 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 26, 2022).
    Baldwin v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 549, 556 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir.2000)); Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir.2001). ‘“[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claimant…
  • Wyers v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r, No. 2:21-cv-02031 (W.D. Ark. July 8, 2022).
    The ALJ should obtain evidence that addresses the claimant’s “ability to function in the workplace.” Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000); Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2000).
  • Frey v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r, No. 5:21-cv-05051 (W.D. Ark. May 26, 2022).
    The RFC must, however, be supported by “some medical evidence,” and the ALJ should obtain evidence that addresses the claimant's “ability to function in the workplace.” Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000); Nevland v. Apfel, 2…
  • O'Neal v. Kijakazi, No. 1:19-cv-00225, 2021 WL 4552167 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 5, 2021).
    “Some medical evidence must support the determination of the claimant's RFC.” Eichelberger, 390 F.3d at 591 (citing Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he ALJ should obtain medical evi…
  • Buckentin v. Kijakazi, No. 0:20-cv-01179 (D. Minn. Sept. 15, 2021).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claiman…
  • Terrell v. Kijakazi, No. 0:20-cv-00576 (D. Minn. Aug. 16, 2021).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claiman…
  • Atkins v. Saul, 814 F. App'x 150 (D. Minn. 2021).unpublished
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claiman…
  • Smith v. Saul, No. 4:19-cv-03163 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 29, 2021).
    The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified in Lauer that “[s]ome medical evidence . . . must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function i…
  • McCurry v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r, No. 2:20-cv-02004 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 14, 2021).
    The RFC must, however, be supported by “some medical evidence,” and the ALJ should obtain evidence that addresses the claimant’s “ability to function in the workplace.” Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000); Nevland v. Apfel, 2…
  • Smith v. Saul, No. 1:20-cv-00027 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 4, 2021).
    Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
  • Williams v. Saul, No. 4:19-cv-02332, 2020 WL 5814479 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 2020).
    The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified in Lauer that “[s]ome medical evidence ... must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in…
  • Kuehl v. Berryhill, No. 4:19-cv-01197 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2020).
    Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
  • Medved v. Saul, No. 0:19-cv-02434 (D. Minn. Sept. 29, 2020).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claiman…
  • Solomon v. Saul, No. 0:19-cv-00931 (D. Minn. Sept. 29, 2020).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claiman…
  • Saunders v. Saul, No. 4:19-cv-02639 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 14, 2020).
    Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000).
  • Hokic v. Saul, No. 4:19-cv-01850 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 21, 2020).
    Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000).
  • Breckle v. Saul, No. 4:19-cv-02400 (E.D. Mo. July 16, 2020).
    The Eighth Circuit clarified in Lauer that “[s]ome medical evidence . . . must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace[.…
  • McCall v. Berryhill, No. 4:18-cv-01951 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 19, 2020).
    The Eighth Circuit clarified in Lauer that “[s]ome medical evidence . . . must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace[.…
  • Reading v. Berryhill, No. 2:19-cv-00002 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 2, 2020).
    Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000)).
  • Bass v. Berryhill, No. 6:18-cv-03356 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 12, 2020).
    Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000).
  • Hartwig v. Kijakazi, No. 1:18-cv-01508 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 3, 2020).
    And “‘[s]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC.” Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)).
  • Delana v. Berryhill, No. 1:19-cv-00020 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 15, 2020).
    Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2000).
  • Young v. Berryhill, No. 4:18-cv-00532 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 24, 2019).
    The Eighth Circuit clarified in Lauer that “[s]ome medical evidence . . . must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace[.…
  • Steward v. Saul, No. 0:18-cv-01892 (D. Minn. Sept. 24, 2019).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claiman…
  • Murphy v. Berryhill, No. 2:18-cv-00082 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 24, 2019).
    The Eighth Circuit clarified in Lauer that “[s]ome medical evidence . . . must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace[.…
  • Reed v. Berryhill, No. 2:18-cv-00066 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 20, 2019).
    The Eighth Circuit clarified in Lauer that “[s]ome medical evidence . . . must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace[.…
  • Stomer v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 4:18-cv-00475 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 13, 2019).
    The Eighth Circuit clarified in Lauer that “[s]ome medical evidence . . . must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace[.…
  • Dekarski v. Saul, No. 0:18-cv-02056 (D. Minn. Sept. 13, 2019).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claiman…
  • Anderson v. Saul, No. 0:17-cv-04322 (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2019).
    The Eighth Circuit has held that “a ‘claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.’” Id. (quoting Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001)). “‘[S]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claiman…
  • Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2010).published
  • Robert J. Lauer v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2001).published
  • Marvin Baldwin, Sr. v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 349 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2003).published
  • Espanola Masterson v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2004).published
  • Bertha Eichelberger v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2004).published
  • STALKUP v. Astrue, 662 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (S.D. Iowa 2009).published
  • Branson v. Astrue, 678 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Mo. 2010).published
  • BISSEN v. Astrue, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (S.D. Iowa 2010).published
  • Rivera v. Massanari, 176 F. Supp. 2d 892 (S.D. Iowa 2001).published
  • Bauer v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 734 F. Supp. 2d 773 (D. Minn. 2010).published
  • Hartman v. Astrue, 592 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (S.D. Iowa 2009).published
  • K.K.C. v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 818 F.3d 364 (8th Cir. 2016).published
  • Donald Fentress v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 854 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2017).published
  • Berry v. Colvin, 74 F. Supp. 3d 994 (N.D. Iowa 2015).published
  • Mercer v. Colvin, 77 F. Supp. 3d 818 (S.D. Iowa 2015).published
  • Gann v. Colvin, 92 F. Supp. 3d 857 (N.D. Iowa 2015).published
  • Cowles v. Colvin, 102 F. Supp. 3d 1042 (N.D. Iowa 2015).published
  • White v. Colvin, 129 F. Supp. 3d 813 (E.D. Mo. 2015).published
  • Nicolls v. Astrue, 874 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Iowa 2012).published
  • Denhoff v. Astrue, 906 F. Supp. 2d 866 (S.D. Iowa 2012).published
  • Shew v. Colvin, 956 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (E.D. Mo. 2013).published
  • Biksen-Bond v. Berryhill, No. 0:17-cv-05039 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2018).
  • Hoverson v. Berryhill, No. 0:17-cv-04975 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2019).
  • Meder v. Berryhill, No. 0:17-cv-05086 (D. Minn. Feb. 12, 2019).
  • Hill v. Berryhill, No. 0:18-cv-00632 (D. Minn. Feb. 25, 2019).
  • Ryan v. Berryhill, No. 0:17-cv-05587 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2019).
  • Woyda v. Berryhill, No. 0:18-cv-00398 (D. Minn. May 10, 2019).
  • Moua v. Berryhill, No. 0:18-cv-00862 (D. Minn. May 17, 2019).
  • Viker v. Saul, No. 0:18-cv-02410 (D. Minn. Aug. 15, 2019).
  • Williams v. Saul, No. 0:18-cv-02175 (D. Minn. Sept. 6, 2019).
  • Omerovic v. Berryhill, No. 4:18-cv-00694 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 30, 2019).
  • Valentin v. Berryhill, No. 4:16-cv-01071 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 10, 2017).
  • Salsbury v. Berryhill, No. 5:16-cv-06169 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 3, 2017).
  • Porter v. Berryhill, No. 4:17-cv-00072, 2018 WL 1183400 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 7, 2018).
  • Colbert v. Berryhill, No. 2:16-cv-04301 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 22, 2018).
  • Booth v. Berryhill, No. 4:18-cv-00179 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 17, 2019).
  • Kern v. Berryhill, No. 4:16-cv-01201 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 15, 2018).
At page 866 Determining residual functional capacity with medical evidence30 citing casesTo the extent [claimant] is arguing that residual functional capacity may be proved only by medical evidence, we disagree.3 citing courts put it this way · 28 listed here
  • Bauer v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:20-cv-00358 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 1, 2021).
    (To the extent [claimant] is arguing that residual functional capacity may be proved only by medical evidence, we disagree.)
  • Wicks v. Berryhill, No. 4:18-cv-00603 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 19, 2019).
    (To the extent [claimant] is arguing that residual functional capacity may be proved only by medical evidence, we disagree.)
  • Smith v. Saul, No. 4:18-cv-00769 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 6, 2019).
    (To the extent [claimant] is arguing that residual functional capacity may be proved only by medical evidence, we disagree.)
  • Washington v. Kijakazi, No. 4:21-cv-00253 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 9, 2022).
    E.g., Baldwin v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 549, 556 (8th Cir. 2003); McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2000); Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 866 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
  • Lumley v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:18-cv-00202 (D.N.D. July 26, 2021).
    Yet, “an ALJ is not limited to considering medical evidence 24 exclusively.” Cox, 495 F.3d at 619 , citing Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir.2001) and Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865, 866 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam).
  • Kelley v. Saul, No. 3:18-cv-01423 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2019).
    Case No.: 3:18cv1423/EMT McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2000) (the Commissioner must determine a claimant’s RFC based on all of the relevant evidence, including the medical records, observations of treating physicians and o…
  • Larry Krogmeier v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, 1 Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 294 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 2002).published
  • Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2007).published
  • Johnson v. Astrue, 816 F. Supp. 2d 752 (W.D. Mo. 2011).published
  • Anschutz v. Barnhart, 212 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (S.D. Iowa 2002).published
Show 18 more citing cases
At page 865 “to the extent claimant is arguing that residual functional capacity may be proved only by medical evidence, we disagree.”0 citing cases4 citing courts quote it
    Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
    Cynthia M. DYKES, Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee
    99-3916.
    Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
    Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
    Aug 21, 2000.
    Published opinion
    223 F.3d 865
    2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21083
    2000 WL 1182820
    Michael DePree, Davenport, IA, argued, for Appellant., Inga Bumbary-Langston, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Des Moines, IA, argued (Don C. Nickerson, U.S. Attorney, Des Moines, IA, Frank V. Smith, III, Chief Counsel, SSA, Kevin B. Murphy, Assistant Regional Counsel, SSA, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for Appellee.
    Bowman, Gibson, Loken.
    Cited by 120 opinions  |  Published
    PER CURIAM.

    Cynthia M. Dykes applied for Social Security disability and supplemental security income benefits, claiming a disability onset date of February 10, 1994, due to tendinitis and adhesive capsulitis of the right shoulder caused by a November 1993 work injury, and myofascial pain syndrome and headaches. After a hearing, the Commissioner’s administrative law judge found that Dykes has severe right shoulder impairments, but not listed impairments, and that she could not return to her past relevant work, various jobs that “were unskilled and lower level semi-skilled jobs performed at light to heavy levels of exertion.” However, viewing the record as a whole, including the opinion testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ found that Dykes is not disabled because she retains the residual functional capacity to perform light and sedentary unskilled jobs that do not require significant lifting, such as airline security, parking enforcement, and escort vehicle driving.

    After the Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied further administrative review, Dykes commenced this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s adverse final decision. The district court [2] affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, concluding that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s finding that Dykes is not disabled. Dykes appeals. We affirm.

    On appeal, Dykes first argues that the ALJ erred in not requiring, at step five of the sequential disability evaluation process, [3] that the Commissioner prove by objective medical evidence that she has the residual functional capacity to perform other work. To the extent Dykes is arguing that residual functional capacity may be proved only by medical evidence, we disagree. The current regulations make clear that residual functional capacity is a[*867] determination based upon all the record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-8p, at pp. 8-9. We agree with Dykes to this extent — the record must include some medical evidence that supports the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding. See Anderson v. Shalala, 51 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir.1995). That requirement is more than satisfied here, both in the treatment histories of Dykes’s shoulder condition, and in the fact that at least one of her treating physicians released her to return to light duty work.

    Dykes further argues that the ALJ erred in failing to acknowledge two of her impairments, myofascial pain syndrome and headaches; in failing to properly consider medical evidence of greater functional limitations; and in posing a hypothetical question to the vocational expert that did not include all her limitations. After carefully considering the record as a whole, we reject these contentions for the reasons stated in the district court’s Judicial Review Decision of October 13,1999.

    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

    2

    . The HONORABLE CHARLES R. WOLLE, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.