Bowen v. Yuckert (1987)

See also Brown v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“The Secretary . . . has express statutory authority to place the burden of showing a medically de- terminable impairment on the claimant.”); Doughty, 245 F.3d at 1278 (“The burden is primarily on the claimant to prove that he is disabled[.]”).

See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 156-157 (“failure to find a particular impairment severe at step two is not reversible error as long as the ALJ finds that at least one other impairment is severe”); Valley v. Astrue, 2011 WL 5999260 , at *2 (E.D.

See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 156-157 (“failure to find a particular impairment severe at step two is not reversible error as long as the ALJ finds that at least one other impairment is severe”); Valley v. Astrue, 2011 WL 5999260 , at *2 (E.D.

Id. at 146 (“An individual shall not be considered . . . disable[d] unless [s]he furnishes such medical and other evidence . . . as the [Commissioner] may require.”).

Id. at 146 (“An individual shall not be considered . . . disable[ed] unless he furnishes such medical and other evidence . . . as the [Commissioner] may require.”).

Id. at 146 (“An individual shall not be considered . . . disable[ed] unless he furnishes such medical and other evidence . . . as the [Commissioner] may require.”).

Id. at 146 (“An individual shall not be considered . . . disable[ed] unless he furnishes such medical and other evidence . . . as the [Commissioner] may require.”).

See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 , n.5 107 S. Ct. 2287 5 (1987) (“It is not unreasonable to require the claimant, who is in a better position to 6 provide information about his own medical condition, to do so.”).

See id. § 404.900(a)(5); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987) (“Once the claimant has exhausted these administrative remedies, [s]he may seek review in federal district court.”).

Tex. Oct. 8, 2024) (citing Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987) (“Once the claimant has exhausted these administrative remedies, [s]he may seek review in federal district court.”)).

See Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 6 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The claimant carries the initial burden of proving a disability.”) 7 (citation omitted); Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The mere existence of 8 an impairment is insufficient proof of a disability” because the “claimant bears the burden of 9 proving that an impairment is disabling”); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“It is not 10 unreasonable to require the claimant, who is in …

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (a)(4)(iii); 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987) (“If the 3 impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled.”).

If the claimant meets all criteria for a listed impairment, he is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d)-(e); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987) and Rabbers v. Comm’r of SSA, 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2009) (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”).

See Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The 17 claimant carries the initial burden of proving a disability.”) (citation omitted); Bowen v. Yuckert, 18 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“It is not unreasonable to require the claimant, who is in a better position 19 to provide information about his own medical condition, to do so.”). 20 21 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ should have obtained either “medical expert testimony or a 22 consultative examination.” But t…

If the claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, she is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers v. Comm’r of SSA, 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2009) (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”).

Plaintiff contends that because the ALJ did 24 25 7 See Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The Claimant carries the initial 26 burden of proving a disability.”) (citation omitted); Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The mere existence of an impairment is insufficient proof of a disability” because the 27 “Claimant bears the burden of proving that an impairment is disabling”); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“It is not u…

See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“It is not 12 unreasonable to require the claimant, who is in a better position to provide information about his 13 14 own medical condition, to do so.”). 15 Plaintiff was however able to provide the April 10, 2017 radiology reports discussed above 16 (dated shortly after the expiration of Plaintiff’s insured status), and the ALJ admitted them into the 17 record as they had not yet been added to the record (and thus not yet rev…

If the claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, she is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d)-(e) (emphasis added); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers v. Comm'r of SSA, 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2009) (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”).

If the claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, he is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers v. Comm’r of SSA, 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2009) (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”).

Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987); 12 Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1998) (“At all times, the burden is on the claimant to 13 establish her entitlement to disability insurance benefits.”).

See Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The claimant carries the initial burden of proving a disability.”) (citation omitted); Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 27 1993) (“The mere existence of an impairment is insufficient proof of a disability” because the “claimant bears the burden of proving that an impairment is disabling”). 28 7 See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“It is not unreasonable to require the claimant, who is in…

See Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The claimant carries the initial burden of proving a disability.”) (citation omitted); Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 27 1993) (“The mere existence of an impairment is insufficient proof of a disability” because the “claimant bears the burden of proving that an impairment is disabling”). 28 7 See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“It is not unreasonable to require the claimant, who is in…

If the claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, he is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers v. Comm’r of SSA, 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2009) (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”).

If the claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, he is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers v. Comm’r of SSA, 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2009) (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”).

If a claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, she is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to step four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d)–(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc.

See Bowen 22 v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“It is not unreasonable to require the claimant, who is in a 23 better position to provide information about his own medical condition, to do so.”); Ukolov v. 24 Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The claimant carries the initial burden of proving 25 a disability.”) (citation omitted). 26 Plaintiff emphasizes additional contextual information concerning her activities from her 27 28 own function report as well a…

If the claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, she is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc.

Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“The Secretary . . . has express statutory authority to place the burden of showing a medically determinable impairment on the claimant.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508 (providing that claimant must establish existence of medically determinable impairment from “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”).

If the claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, he is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers v. Comm’r of SSA, 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2009) (“A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria to meet the listing.”).

See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 153 (1987) (“[S]tep three streamlines the decision process by identifying those claimants whose medical impairments are so severe that it is likely they would be found disabled regardless of their vocational background.”).

An ALJ conclusively presumes a claimant is disabled if the impairments 12 meet or equal one of the listed impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (d); Bowen v. Yuckert, 13 482 U.S. 137, 153 (1987) (“[S]tep three streamlines the decision process by identifying 14 those claimants whose medical impairments are so severe that it is likely they would be 15 found disabled regardless of their vocational background.”).

If the claimant meets all of the criteria of a listed impairment, he is disabled; otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d)-(e); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); see also Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc.

Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146, n. 5 (1987)(“. . . is not unreasonable to require the claimant, who is in a better position to provide information about his own medical condition, to do so.”).

But, in all social security disability cases, the ultimate “burden lies with the claimant to prove that she is disabled.” Ferguson v. Comm'r, 628 F.3d 269, 275 (6th Cir. 2010); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, n.5 (1987) (“It is not unreasonable to require the claimant, who is in a better position to provide information about his own medical condition, to do so.”).

Conn. Mar. 21, 2019) (ALJ was not required to further develop the record where plaintiff was represented and had “enough time to procure and present the missing [evidence] to the ALJ before, at, or after the administrative hearing); see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146, n.5 (1987) (“This allocation of burdens of proof is well within the Secretary’s ‘exceptionally broad authority’ under the statute....

Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460 (1983) (“A claimant who establishes that he suffers from one of these [listed] impairments will be considered disabled without further inquiry.”) 28 Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994). 29 Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 153 (1987) (“[S]tep three streamlines the decision process by identifying those claimants whose medical impairments are so severe that it is likely t…

See Jamerson, 112 F.3d at 1066 (errors are harmless if 17 inconsequential to the nondisability determination); Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th 18 Cir. 2005) (“The claimant carries the initial burden of proving a disability.”) (citation omitted); 19 Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The mere existence of an impairment is 20 21 insufficient proof of a disability” because the “claimant bears the burden of proving that an 22 impairment is disab…

See Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 16 F.3d 1002 , 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The claimant carries the initial burden of proving a disability.”) 17 (citation omitted); Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The mere existence of 18 an impairment is insufficient proof of a disability” because the “claimant bears the burden of 19 proving that an impairment is disabling”); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“It is not 20 21 unreasonable to require the claimant, wh…

Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987); see also Tidwell v. 6 Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1998) (“At all times, the burden is on the claimant to establish [his] 7 entitlement to disability insurance benefits”).

Jan. 31, 2012) (quoting Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005)); see also Felton-Miller v. Astrue, 459 F. App'x 226, 230 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 153-54 (1987) (“Step two of the sequential evaluation is a threshold question with a de minimis severity requirement.”)).

Gedatus, 994 F.3d at 905 ; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146, n. 5 (1987)(“It is not unreasonable to require the claimant, who is in a better position to provide information about his own medical condition, to do so.”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512 (c) (“You must provide medical evidence showing that you have an impairment and how severe it is during the time you say that you were disabled.”).

“The Supreme Court has adopted what is referred to as a ‘de minimis’ standard with regard to the step two severity standard: ‘only those claimants with slight abnormalities that do not significantly limit any “basic work activity” can be denied benefits without undertaking’ the subsequent steps of the sequential evaluation process.’” Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116, 1123 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 158 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring)) (inte…

“The Supreme Court has adopted what is referred to as a ‘de minimis’ standard with regard to the step two severity standard: ‘only those claimants with slight abnormalities that do not significantly limit any “basic work activity” can be denied benefits without undertaking’ the subsequent steps of the sequential evaluation process.’” Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116, 1123 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 158 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring)) (inte…

The burden of showing that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy is on the Commissioner; however, the burden of proving disability is always on the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 , 416.920; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 147 (1987); Lesterhuis v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2015) (“The claimant bears the ultimate burden of proving [disability] throughout the period for which benefits are sought.”) (citation omitted…

The burden of showing that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy is on the Commissioner; however, the burden of proving disability is always on the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 , 416.920; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 147 (1987); Lesterhuis v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2015) (“The claimant bears the ultimate burden of proving [disability] throughout the period for which benefits are sought.”) (citation omitted…

The burden of showing that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy is on the Commissioner; however, the burden of proving disability is always on the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 , 416.920; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 147 (1987); Lesterhuis v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2015) (“The claimant bears the ultimate burden of proving [disability] throughout the period for which benefits are sought.”) (citation omitted…

The burden of showing that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy is on the Commissioner; however, the burden of proving disability is always on the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 , 416.920; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 147 (1987); Lesterhuis v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2015) (“The claimant bears the ultimate burden of proving [disability] throughout the period for which benefits are sought.”) (citation omitted…

See Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 9 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The claimant carries the initial burden of proving a disability.”) 10 (citation omitted); Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The mere existence of 11 an impairment is insufficient proof of a disability” because the “claimant bears the burden of 12 proving that an impairment is disabling”); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“It is not 13 unreasonable to require the claimant, who is …

That means that the claimant bears the risk of uncertainty, . . . .”); Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2004)(“It is axiomatic that the claimant bears the burden of supplying adequate records and evidence to prove their claim of disability.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512 (c) ( “You must provide medical evidence showing that you have an impairment and how severe it is during the time you say that you were disabled.”); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146, n. 5 (1987)(“…

Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (“The 12 Secretary . . . has express statutory authority to place the burden of showing a medically 13 determinable impairment on the claimant.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508 (providing that 14 claimant must establish existence of medically determinable impairment from “medically 15 acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”).