20 C.F.R. § 404.1509
How long the impairment must last
Unless your impairment is expected to result in death, it must have lasted or must be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. We call this the duration requirement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,560
cases (884 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Jimmy Radford v. Carolyn Colvin
Jimmy Radford v. Carolyn Colvin (2013)
“” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 (“How long the impairment must last”).”
Maureen Thomas v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (2002)
“; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 ; and (3) that her period of disability began while she was “insured for disability insurance benefits,” 42 U.”
Meuser v. Colvin (2016)
“To the contrary, the ALJ clearly misunderstood the medical evidence and repeatedly relied on the lack of “positive” symptoms and the reference to negative symptoms to conclude that Meuser’s schizophrenia was not severe. The Commissioner further argues that any error with respect…”
Purdy v. Berryhill (2018)
“The ALJ noted that although Purdy had been diagnosed with a left hip stress fracture in April 2013, 4 the impairment was not "severe" as there was "no evidence in the record that it ha[d] persisted or [was] expected to persist for 12 consecutive months as required by 20 CFR §§…”
Ortiz v. Colvin (2018)
“If the impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a listed impairment and meets the durational requirement ( 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 ), the claimant is disabled.”
Angela M. Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security (2003)
“1505 ; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 . To be found disabled, Ms.”
Dillon v. Colvin (2016)
“See 20 CFR § 404.1509 . The ALJ found Mr. Dillon suffered from the following severe impairments: “bi-polar disorder; 2 anxiety disorder 3 with panic; impulse control disorder; diabetes mellitus; recurrent deep vein thrombosis; lumbar degenerative disease; sleep apnea.”
Douglas GARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee (1984)
“See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 ; 20 C.F.R. § 416.909 .”
Kirk v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981)
“20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 (c) [1980]. In any event, the new regulations do not provide administrative notice that jobs exist in the national economy for a person with this claimant’s functional restrictions.”
Smith v. Colvin (2014)
“920(c); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509 , 416.909 (duration requirement).”
Simon-Leveque v. Colvin (2017)
“Is the claimant unable to perform any other work? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509 , 404.1520; see Clifford v.”
Francisco Salinas v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981)
“Given the explicit factual findings in the record by the ALJ, the existence in the economy of jobs that a person with Salinas’s qualifications could fill could be established by administrative notice, 20 C.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509(c) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.