20 C.F.R. § 404.1563

Your age as a vocational factor

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

(a) General. “Age” means your chronological age. When we decide whether you are disabled under § 404.1520(g)(1), we will consider your chronological age in combination with your residual functional capacity, education, and work experience. We will not consider your ability to adjust to other work on the basis of your age alone. In determining the extent to which age affects a person's ability to adjust to other work, we consider advancing age to be an increasingly limiting factor in the person's ability to make such an adjustment, as we explain in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section. If you are unemployed but you still have the ability to adjust to other work, we will find that you are not disabled. In paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section and in appendix 2 to this subpart, we explain in more detail how we consider your age as a vocational factor.

(b) How we apply the age categories. When we make a finding about your ability to do other work under § 404.1520(f)(1), we will use the age categories in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section. We will use each of the age categories that applies to you during the period for which we must determine if you are disabled. We will not apply the age categories mechanically in a borderline situation. If you are within a few days to a few months of reaching an older age category, and using the older age category would result in a determination or decision that you are disabled, we will consider whether to use the older age category after evaluating the overall impact of all the factors of your case.

(c) Younger person. If you are a younger person (under age 50), we generally do not consider that your age will seriously affect your ability to adjust to other work. However, in some circumstances, we consider that persons age 45-49 are more limited in their ability to adjust to other work than persons who have not attained age 45. See Rule 201.17 in appendix 2.

(d) Person closely approaching advanced age. If you are closely approaching advanced age (age 50-54), we will consider that your age along with a severe impairment(s) and limited work experience may seriously affect your ability to adjust to other work.

(e) Person of advanced age. We consider that at advanced age (age 55 or older), age significantly affects a person's ability to adjust to other work. We have special rules for persons of advanced age and for persons in this category who are closely approaching retirement age (age 60 or older). See § 404.1568(d)(4).

(f) Information about your age. We will usually not ask you to prove your age. However, if we need to know your exact age to determine whether you get disability benefits or if the amount of your benefit will be affected, we will ask you for evidence of your age.

[45 FR 55584, Aug. 20, 1980, as amended at 65 FR 18000, Apr. 6, 2000; 68 FR 51163, Aug. 26, 2003; 73 FR 64196, Oct. 29, 2008]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2,691 cases (1,541 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Bowie v. Comm'r of Soc. SEC., 539 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bowie v. Comm'r of Soc. SEC., 539 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 34× “At least on the particular facts of this case, it was procedurally acceptable for the ALJ not to address in his opinion that Bowie was "borderline" between age groups under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 (b). The district court therefore properly upheld the Commissioner's denial of…”

Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 10× “Lastly, Bray contends that the ALJ applied the governing Medical Vocational Guidelines "mechanically" in a borderline situation in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 (b), by including her in *1221 the 50-54 age category even though she was less than a month from turning 55 at the…”

Diana Phillips v. Michael J. Astrue, 671 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012). · cites it 10× “20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 (c)-(e); see also 20 C.”

Lockwood v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 (c)-(e). Where a claimant is within a few days or a few months of reaching an older age category (a “borderline situation”), an ALJ has discretion, but is not required, to use the older age category.”

Verna B. TERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 903 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 (d). Accordingly, it is not enough that persons of advanced age are capable of doing unskilled work; to be not disabled, they must have acquired skills from their past work that are transferable to skilled or semiskilled work.”

Grace DRUMMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Comm'r OF Soc. Sec., Defendant-Appellee, 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997). · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 (b). On October 14, 1988, Drummond filed a second application for DIB.”

Walter Preslar v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 14 F.3d 1107 (6th Cir. 1994). · cites it 5× “A claimant’s age is evaluated under the four-tiered structure of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 . Age is presumed not to affect seriously the ability to adapt to new work situations for people under age 50.”

Tammy Schofield v. Andrew Saul, Comm'r, 950 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 (b). A borderline situation occurs when an applicant is “within a few days to a few months” of an older age category.”

Ficca v. Astrue, 901 F. Supp. 2d 533 (M.D. Penn. 2012). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 (c); (Tr. 23, 71). Ficca has a college degree.”

John VARLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sec'y OF HEALTH & HUMAN Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 820 F.2d 777 (6th Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 (d). Section 404.1563(d) provides: Person of advanced age.”

Alvin R. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 862 F.2d 471 (5th Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 . An individual in this age group who possesses the capacity for light work generally is considered not disabled.”

Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (1983). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the regulations declare that the administrative law judge will not apply the age categories "mechanically in a borderline situation," 20 CFR § 404.1563 (a) (1982), and recognize that some claimants may possess limitations that are not factored into the guidelines,…”

Show all 2,691 citing cases →

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(a) — 4 cases

Billy D. UNDERWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 828 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir. 1987).

Leyba v. Chater, 983 F. Supp. 1048 (D.N.M. 1996).

Gerald Jackson v. Louis W. Sullivan, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 960 F.2d 146 (4th Cir. 1992).

Langford v. Saul (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2019).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(b) — 13 cases

Bowie v. Comm'r of Soc. SEC., 539 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2008). “At least on the particular facts of this case, it was procedurally acceptable for the ALJ not to address in his opinion that Bowie was "borderline" between age groups under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 (b). The district court therefore properly upheld the Commissioner's denial of…”

Sidney MILLNER, Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 725 F.2d 243 (4th Cir. 1984).

Pickett v. Astrue, 895 F. Supp. 2d 720 (E.D. Va. 2012).

Jacques v. Saul (N.D.N.Y. 2020).

Hethcox v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r (N.D. Ala. 2022).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) — 38 cases

Robinson v. Colvin, 137 F. Supp. 3d 630 (D. Del. 2015).

Walhood v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 875 F. Supp. 1278 (E.D. Tex. 1995).

Furgerson v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r (W.D. Ark. 2023).

Glenn v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r (W.D. Ark. 2023).

Waters v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r (W.D. Ark. 2023).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(d) — 24 cases

Estes L. Leston v. Donna Shalala, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 13 F.3d 405 (10th Cir. 1993).

Williams v. Apfel, 65 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (N.D. Okla. 1999).

Barber v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 870 F. Supp. 181 (E.D. Mich. 1994).

Nalley v. Schweiker, 575 F. Supp. 840 (W.D. Ky. 1983).

Everett M. Long v. Donna E. Shalala, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 9 F.3d 117 (10th Cir. 1993).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(e) — 5 cases

Hurst v. Saul (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2019).

(SS) Puckett v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Jose Luis Verduzco Huerta v. Nancy A. Berryhill (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Collazo-Huertas v. Commisioner of Soc. Sec. (D.P.R. 2021).

Pena-Maldonado v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (D.P.R. 2021).

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.