20 C.F.R. § 416.905

Basic definition of disability for adults

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

(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.”
Deborah Colvin v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security (2007) ca6 “See also 20 C.F.R. § 416.905 (a) (same definition used in the SSI context).”
Wilson v. Astrue (2010) ca10 “2009) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.905 (a)) (ellipsis in original).”
Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security (2016) ohnd · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 416.905 ; Kirk v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.”
Douglas GARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee (1984) ca6 “1520(f)(1); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.905 (a), 416.920(f)(1). The Secretary found Garner not disabled for two reasons.”
Mason L. GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee (1985) ca11 · cites it 2× “The first step requires that the claimant prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment likely to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months which prevents him from performing his past work.”
William MORALES, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security (2000) ca3 “Annual Pocket Part); 20 C.F.R. § 416.905 (a) (1999). To determine whether a claimant is entitled to disability benefits, the Commissioner applies a sequential five-step inquiry pursuant to 20 C.”
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.”
Connie L. BAKER, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee (1992) ca8 “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.905 (1991). Given her work and medical history, Baker must show that her severe combination of impairments prevents her from doing her past work.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a) — 5 cases
Marriage of Cox v. Cox (1995) indctapp
Higgins v. Apfel (2001) moed
Copes v. Crater (1997) moed
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.