(a) The law defines disability as the inability to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. To meet this definition, you must have a severe impairment(s) that makes you unable to do your past relevant work (see § 416.960(b)) or any other substantial gainful work that exists in the national economy. If your severe impairment(s) does not meet or medically equal a listing in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of this chapter, we will assess your residual functional capacity as provided in §§ 416.920(e) and 416.945. (See § 416.920(g)(2) and 416.962 for an exception to this rule.) We will use this residual functional capacity assessment to determine if you can do your past relevant work. If we find that you cannot do your past relevant work, we will use the same residual functional capacity assessment and your vocational factors of age, education, and work experience to determine if you can do other work. (See § 416.920(h) for an exception to this rule.)
(b) There are different rules for determining disability for individuals who are statutorily blind. We discuss these in §§ 416.981 through 416.985.
[45 FR 55621, Aug. 20, 1980, as amended at 56 FR 5553, Feb. 11, 1991; 68 FR 51164, Aug. 26, 2003; 77 FR 43495, July 25, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
964
cases (
615 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
Wall v. Astrue
Wall v. Astrue (2009)
ca10 · cites it 4×
“" 20 C.F.R. § 416.905 (a). *1052 The five-step framework the Social Security Administration uses to determine whether these conditions are met proceeds as follows.”
Chavez v. Berryhill (2018)
ca7
“At step one of the five-step disability analysis delineated in 20 C.F.R. § 416.905 (a), the ALJ found that Chavez had not worked since applying for benefits.”
Grogan v. Barnhart (2005)
ca10
“” 20 C.F.R. § 416.905 . In a decision dated September 25, 2001, the ALJ determined that Grogan was not disabled because, in the window that could be considered, Grogan had only an impairment in his back, and his impairment had not been severe.”
Wilson v. Astrue (2010)
ca10
“2009) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.905 (a)) (ellipsis in original).”
Benko v. Schweiker (1982)
nhd · cites it 2×
“20 CFR § 416.905 (a). In a termination proceeding based upon improved condition, the issue addressed is disability over a separate and different period of time than that previously litigated.”
Valiquette v. Astrue (2007)
mad · cites it 3×
“1505(a); 20 C.F.R. § 416.905 (a). The SSA affirmed the ALJ’s decision on November 9, 2005.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a) — 5 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.