(a) Responsibility for assessing residual functional capacity at the State agency. When a State agency medical or psychological consultant and a State agency disability examiner make the disability determination as provided in § 404.1615(c)(1) of this part, a State agency medical or psychological consultant(s) is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity. When a State agency disability examiner makes a disability determination alone as provided in § 404.1615(c)(3), the disability examiner is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity.
(b) Responsibility for assessing residual functional capacity in the disability hearings process. If your case involves a disability hearing under § 404.914, a disability hearing officer is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity. However, if the disability hearing officer's reconsidered determination is changed under § 404.918, the Associate Commissioner for the Office of Disability Determinations or his or her delegate is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity.
(c) Responsibility for assessing residual functional capacity at the administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council level. If your case is at the administrative law judge hearing level or at the Appeals Council review level, the administrative law judge or the administrative appeals judge at the Appeals Council (when the Appeals Council makes a decision) is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity.
[68 FR 51162, Aug. 26, 2003, as amended at 71 FR 16445, Mar. 31, 2006; 75 FR 62681, Oct. 13, 2010; 76 FR 24807, May 3, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
1,412
cases (
1,028 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Burns v. Colvin, 156 F. Supp. 3d 579 (M.D. Penn. 2016).
Burns v. Colvin, 156 F. Supp. 3d 579 (M.D. Penn. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Chandler found that “the regulations do not require ALJs to seek outside expert assistance, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1546 (c), 404.1527(e).” Chandler, 667 F.”
Kacee Chandler v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356 (3rd Cir. 2011).
“1527(f), the regulations do not require ALJs to seek outside expert assistance, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1546 (c), 404.1527(e); SSR 96-5p (July 2, 1996).”
Johnson v. Colvin, 669 F. App'x 44 (2d Cir. 2016).
“See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546 (a)(3) (explaining that an ALJ looks to “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” including relevant medical reports, consultative examinations, medical history, and statements from medical sources, family, friends, or other persons when assessing…”
Goodman v. Colvin, 233 F. Supp. 3d 88 (D.D.C. 2017).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 404.1546 (a). At the administrative law hearing stage, responsibility shifts to the ALJ to assess a claimant’s RFC and disability.”
Fleischer v. Astrue, 774 F. Supp. 2d 875 (N.D. Ohio 2011).
“While the responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity resides with the ALJ, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1546 (c), 416.946, “an ALJ nonetheless cannot substitute his ‘medical’ opinion for that of a treating or examining doctor.”
Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2012).
“927 (e)(2) and SSR 96-59, 1996 WL 374183 , at *5); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1546 (c) and 416.946(c).”
Stephens v. Colvin, 200 F. Supp. 3d 349 (N.D.N.Y. 2016).
“20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1546 (c), 416.946(c). In determining RFC, the ALJ can consider a variety of factors including a treating physician’s or examining physician’s observations of limitations, the claimant’s subjective allega tions of pain, physical and mental abilities, as well as…”
Doris Poe v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 342 F. App'x 149 (6th Cir. 2009).
“See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1546 (c), 416.946(c). Although the ALJ may not substitute his opinion for that of a physician, he is not required to recite the medical opinion of a physician verbatim in his residual functional capacity finding.”
Myers v. Berryhill, 373 F. Supp. 3d 528 (M.D. Penn. 2018).
“Here, it was the ALJ's job to review the evidence of record and assess a proper RFC.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(a)(2) — 1 case
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c) — 34 cases
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.