(a) General. Your impairment(s) and related symptoms, such as pain, may cause limitations of function or restrictions which limit your ability to meet certain demands of jobs. These limitations may be exertional, nonexertional, or a combination of both. Limitations are classified as exertional if they affect your ability to meet the strength demands of jobs. The classification of a limitation as exertional is related to the United States Department of Labor's classification of jobs by various exertional levels (sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy) in terms of the strength demands for sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling. Sections 404.1567 and 404.1569 explain how we use the classification of jobs by exertional levels (strength demands) which is contained in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles published by the Department of Labor, to determine the exertional requirements of work which exists in the national economy. Limitations or restrictions which affect your ability to meet the demands of jobs other than the strength demands, that is, demands other than sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing or pulling, are considered nonexertional. When we decide whether you can do your past relevant work (see §§ 404.1520(f) and 404.1594(f)(7)), we will compare our assessment of your residual functional capacity with the demands of your past relevant work. If you cannot do your past relevant work, we will use the same residual functional capacity assessment along with your age, education, and work experience to decide if you can adjust to any other work which exists in the national economy. (See §§ 404.1520(g) and 404.1594(f)(8).) Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section explain how we apply the medical-vocational guidelines in appendix 2 of this subpart in making this determination, depending on whether the limitations or restrictions imposed by your impairment(s) and related symptoms, such as pain, are exertional, nonexertional, or a combination of both.
(b) Exertional limitations. When the limitations and restrictions imposed by your impairment(s) and related symptoms, such as pain, affect only your ability to meet the strength demands of jobs (sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling), we consider that you have only exertional limitations. When your impairment(s) and related symptoms only impose exertional limitations and your specific vocational profile is listed in a rule contained in appendix 2 of this subpart, we will directly apply that rule to decide whether you are disabled.
(c) Nonexertional limitations. (1) When the limitations and restrictions imposed by your impairment(s) and related symptoms, such as pain, affect only your ability to meet the demands of jobs other than the strength demands, we consider that you have only nonexertional limitations or restrictions. Some examples of nonexertional limitations or restrictions include the following:
(i) You have difficulty functioning because you are nervous, anxious, or depressed;
(ii) You have difficulty maintaining attention or concentrating;
(iii) You have difficulty understanding or remembering detailed instructions;
(iv) You have difficulty in seeing or hearing;
(v) You have difficulty tolerating some physical feature(s) of certain work settings, e.g., you cannot tolerate dust or fumes; or
(vi) You have difficulty performing the manipulative or postural functions of some work such as reaching, handling, stooping, climbing, crawling, or crouching.
(2) If your impairment(s) and related symptoms, such as pain, only affect your ability to perform the nonexertional aspects of work-related activities, the rules in appendix 2 do not direct factual conclusions of disabled or not disabled. The determination as to whether disability exists will be based on the principles in the appropriate sections of the regulations, giving consideration to the rules for specific case situations in appendix 2.
(d) Combined exertional and nonexertional limitations. When the limitations and restrictions imposed by your impairment(s) and related symptoms, such as pain, affect your ability to meet both the strength and demands of jobs other than the strength demands, we consider that you have a combination of exertional and nonexertional limitations or restrictions. If your impairment(s) and related symptoms, such as pain, affect your ability to meet both the strength and demands of jobs other than the strength demands, we will not directly apply the rules in appendix 2 unless there is a rule that directs a conclusion that you are disabled based upon your strength limitations; otherwise the rules provide a framework to guide our decision.
[56 FR 57943, Nov. 14, 1991, as amended at 68 FR 51163, Aug. 26, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2013).
“1999); 20 C.F.R § 404.1569a(c)(2). Although the Commissioner contends that Selian forfeited this argument by failing to raise it before the district court, Selian argued below that the ALJ erred in its consideration of his nonexertional impairments.”
Bisceglia v. Colvin, 173 F. Supp. 3d 326 (E.D. Va. 2016).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R.§ 404.1569a(b). . A nonexertional limitation affects the claimant’s ability to meet the demands of jobs other than the strength demands.”
Woody v. Barnhart, 326 F. Supp. 2d 744 (W.D. Va. 2004).
“20 C.F.R. 404.1569a(a). A nonexertional limitation is “a limitation that is present whether the claimant is attempting to perform the physical requirements of the job or not .”
Batista v. Chater, 972 F. Supp. 211 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
“If however, the claimant “suffer[ed] from additional ‘nonexertional’ impairments [such as anxiety or depression, 20 C.F.R, § 404.1569a(c)(1)(i) (1997) ], the gild rules may not be controlling” and “the guidelines cannot provide the exclusive framework for making a disability…”
Sawyer v. Astrue, 775 F. Supp. 2d 829 (E.D.N.C. 2011).
“” 20 C.F.R. 404.1569a(d). Where such a combination of impairments exists, testimony of a vocational expert is essential for a correct assessment of whether there exists in the national economy a sufficient number of jobs for which a claimant is qualified, given her age,…”
Eason v. Chater, 951 F. Supp. 1556 (D.N.M. 1996).
“There is no evidence that his pain adversely affects his ability to maintain attention or concentration or his ability to understand or remember job instructions, pursuant to 20 CFR 404.1569a(c) and 416.969a(c). In fact, Mr.”
(SS) Clark v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2023).
“1569; 20 CFR 404.1569a. 6 11. The claimant was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from the alleged onset date (February 12, 7 2015) through the date last insured (December 31, 2020).”
Hernandez Ruiz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D.N.Y. 2021).
“Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1569a, 416.1569a, and 416.969a).”
Butcher v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ohio 2021).
“ll exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: he can perform routine tasks in a low stress environment (no fast paced, strict quotas, or frequent duty changes) involving superficial interpersonal interactions with co-workers and supervisors (no…”
Hess v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (N.D. Ohio 2021).
“nce, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl; cannot have concentrated exposure to hazards, including heights, machinery and commercial driving; and mentally, he is limited to performing simple, routine tasks in a low stress environment (no fast pace, strict quotas or frequent duty…”
Pettiford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (N.D. Ohio 2022).
“967(b), with the following additional limitations: no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, or crawling; occasional climbing of ramps and stairs, balancing, stooping, kneeling, and crouching; no concentrated exposure to temperature extremes, humidity, or environmental…”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(a) — 1 case
Woody v. Barnhart, 326 F. Supp. 2d 744 (W.D. Va. 2004).
“20 C.F.R. 404.1569a(a). A nonexertional limitation is “a limitation that is present whether the claimant is attempting to perform the physical requirements of the job or not .”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(b) — 1 case
Bisceglia v. Colvin, 173 F. Supp. 3d 326 (E.D. Va. 2016).
“20 C.F.R.§ 404.1569a(b). . A nonexertional limitation affects the claimant’s ability to meet the demands of jobs other than the strength demands.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(c) — 2 cases
Bisceglia v. Colvin, 173 F. Supp. 3d 326 (E.D. Va. 2016).
“20 C.F.R.§ 404.1569a(b). . A nonexertional limitation affects the claimant’s ability to meet the demands of jobs other than the strength demands.”
Eason v. Chater, 951 F. Supp. 1556 (D.N.M. 1996).
“There is no evidence that his pain adversely affects his ability to maintain attention or concentration or his ability to understand or remember job instructions, pursuant to 20 CFR 404.1569a(c) and 416.969a(c). In fact, Mr.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(c)(1)(i) — 1 case
Batista v. Chater, 972 F. Supp. 211 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
“If however, the claimant “suffer[ed] from additional ‘nonexertional’ impairments [such as anxiety or depression, 20 C.F.R, § 404.1569a(c)(1)(i) (1997) ], the gild rules may not be controlling” and “the guidelines cannot provide the exclusive framework for making a disability…”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(c)(2) — 1 case
Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2013).
“1999); 20 C.F.R § 404.1569a(c)(2). Although the Commissioner contends that Selian forfeited this argument by failing to raise it before the district court, Selian argued below that the ALJ erred in its consideration of his nonexertional impairments.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(c)(i) — 1 case
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(c)(vi) — 1 case
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(d) — 2 cases
Sawyer v. Astrue, 775 F. Supp. 2d 829 (E.D.N.C. 2011).
“” 20 C.F.R. 404.1569a(d). Where such a combination of impairments exists, testimony of a vocational expert is essential for a correct assessment of whether there exists in the national economy a sufficient number of jobs for which a claimant is qualified, given her age,…”
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.