20 C.F.R. § 404.1560

When we will consider your vocational background

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. If you are applying for a period of disability, or disability insurance benefits as a disabled worker, or child's insurance benefits based on disability which began before age 22, or widow's or widower's benefits based on disability for months after December 1990, and we cannot decide whether you are disabled at one of the first three steps of the sequential evaluation process (see § 404.1520), we will consider your residual functional capacity together with your vocational background, as discussed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

(b) Past relevant work. We will first compare our assessment of your residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of your past relevant work. See § 404.1520(h) for an exception to this rule.

(1) Definition of past relevant work—(i) What is past relevant work. Past relevant work is work that you have done within the past five years that was substantial gainful activity and that lasted long enough for you to learn to do it (see § 404.1565(a)). We will not consider work to be past relevant work if you started and stopped it in fewer than 30 calendar days (see paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section).

(ii) 30 calendar days. When we consider past relevant work and work experience (see § 404.1565), 30 calendar days means a period of 30 consecutive days, including weekends, starting from the first day of work. When we consider whether work lasted 30 calendar days, we generally do not consider the total number of hours or days worked during that period, or whether the work was full-time or part-time. The 30 calendar days requirement is separate from the consideration of substantial gainful activity or whether you worked long enough to learn how to do the work, although the work performed during the 30 calendar days may count toward the time needed for you to learn to do the work. The 30 calendar days requirement also applies if you were self-employed or an independent contractor; we will consider whether you were engaged in the same type of work for 30 calendar days, even if individual work assignments or contracts each lasted fewer than 30 calendar days.

(2) Determining whether you can do your past relevant work. We will ask you for information about work you have done in the past. We may also ask other people who know about your work. (See § 404.1565(b).) We may use the services of vocational experts or vocational specialists, or other resources, such as the “Dictionary of Occupational Titles” and its companion volumes and supplements, published by the Department of Labor, to obtain evidence we need to help us determine whether you can do your past relevant work, given your residual functional capacity. A vocational expert or specialist may offer relevant evidence within his or her expertise or knowledge concerning the physical and mental demands of a claimant's past relevant work, either as the claimant actually performed it or as generally performed in the national economy. Such evidence may be helpful in supplementing or evaluating the accuracy of the claimant's description of his past work. In addition, a vocational expert or specialist may offer expert opinion testimony in response to a hypothetical question about whether a person with the physical and mental limitations imposed by the claimant's medical impairment(s) can meet the demands of the claimant's previous work, either as the claimant actually performed it or as generally performed in the national economy.

(3) If you can do your past relevant work. If we find that you have the residual functional capacity to do your past relevant work, we will determine that you can still do your past work and are not disabled. We will not consider your vocational factors of age, education, and work experience or whether your past relevant work exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

(c) Other work. (1) If we find that your residual functional capacity does not enable you to do any of your past relevant work or if we use the procedures in § 404.1520(h), we will use the same residual functional capacity assessment when we decide if you can adjust to any other work. We will look at your ability to adjust to other work by considering your residual functional capacity and the vocational factors of age, education, and work experience, as appropriate in your case. (See § 404.1520(h) for an exception to this rule.) Any other work (jobs) that you can adjust to must exist in significant numbers in the national economy (either in the region where you live or in several regions in the country).

(2) In order to support a finding that you are not disabled at this fifth step of the sequential evaluation process, we are responsible for providing evidence that demonstrates that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that you can do, given your residual functional capacity and vocational factors. We are not responsible for providing additional evidence about your residual functional capacity because we will use the same residual functional capacity assessment that we used to determine if you can do your past relevant work.

[68 FR 51163, Aug. 26, 2003, as amended at 77 FR 43494, July 25, 2012; 89 FR 27667, Apr. 18, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,255 cases (2,025 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009).
Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “" See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (b)(1) (explaining that "past relevant work" must involve "substantial gainful activity").”
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019). · cites it 2× “See 20 CFR §§404.1560 (c)(1), 416.960(c)(1). And the ALJ needed to ascertain whether those kinds of jobs “exist[ed] in significant numbers in the national economy.”
Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64 (2d Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (c)(2); see Poupore v.”
Correale-Englehart v. Astrue, 687 F. Supp. 2d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 6× “3d at 306 ; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (c)(2). 60 The ALJ was not required in step five to provide further evidence to substantiate *441 his determination of plaintiffs RFC made in step four, 61 and instead he could rely on that RFC assessment to determine whether she could perform…”
Thomas Williams v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 1178 (3rd Cir. 1992). · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (b) (1991). The Appeals Council correctly found the AU’s misinterpretation of Velazquez to be legal error.”
Karrine Milhem v. Kilolo Kijakazi, 52 F.4th 688 (7th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560 (c), 416.960(c). This case presents the question: what number of jobs is “significant” for step five? I.”
Morgan v. Barnhart, Comm, 142 F. App'x 716 (4th Cir. 2005). · cites it 5× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (c)(1) (2004). 7 § 404.”
Wright-Hines v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 597 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (b)(2) ("We may use the services of vocational experts .”
Rockwood v. Astrue, 614 F. Supp. 2d 252 (N.D.N.Y. 2009). · cites it 3× “Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant number in the national economy that the claimant can perform ( 20 CFR §§ 404.1560 (c), 404.960(c), and 416966).”
Petrie v. Astrue, 412 F. App'x 401 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560 (c)(2); 416.960(c)(2).”
James L. Batson, Sr. v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004). “If the claimant retains the capacity to perform his or her past relevant work, defined as work the claimant has performed in the past fifteen years, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (b)(1), the claimant is not disabled.”
Gordon Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006). “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560 (b)(3) (“If we find that you have the [RFC] to do your past relevant work, we will determine that you can still do your past work and are not disabled.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(a) — 5 cases
Hoffson v. O'Malley (E.D. Mo. 2024).
Perhach v. O'Malley (N.D.N.Y. 2025).
Vargas (D.N.J. 2025).
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(a)(1) — 2 cases
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b) — 20 cases
Thomas Williams v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 1178 (3rd Cir. 1992). “20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (b) (1991). The Appeals Council correctly found the AU’s misinterpretation of Velazquez to be legal error.”
Christopher Obrien v. Frank Bisignano, 142 F.4th 687 (9th Cir. 2025).
Greg Oliver v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 613 F. App'x 892 (11th Cir. 2015).
Johnson v. Barnhart, 329 F. Supp. 2d 751 (W.D. Va. 2004).
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(1) — 6 cases
Eastman v. Kijakazi (E.D. Mo. 2023).
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(1)(ii) — 1 case
Johnston (W.D. Pa. 2025).
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(2) — 8 cases
Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 280 F. App'x 456 (6th Cir. 2008).
Henderson v. Berryhill (D.D.C. 2019).
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(3) — 3 cases
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c) — 84 cases
Kich v. Colvin, 218 F. Supp. 3d 342 (M.D. Penn. 2016).
Dogan v. Astrue, 751 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Ind. 2010).
Ray v. Astrue, 649 F. Supp. 2d 391 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
Bruce v. Berryhill, 294 F. Supp. 3d 346 (E.D. Pa. 2018).
Smith v. Astrue, 961 F. Supp. 2d 620 (D. Del. 2013).
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c)(1) — 2 cases
Mike Butler v. Kilolo Kijakazi, 4 F.4th 498 (7th Cir. 2021).
Ortiz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 81 F. Supp. 3d 118 (D. Mass. 2015).
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c)(2) — 3 cases
Mancuso v. Astrue, 361 F. App'x 176 (2d Cir. 2010).
Bennett v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Ill. 2022).
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.