20 C.F.R. § 416.912

Responsibility for evidence

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

(a) Your responsibility—(1) General. In general, you have to prove to us that you are blind or disabled. You must inform us about or submit all evidence known to you that relates to whether or not you are blind or disabled (see § 416.913). This duty is ongoing and requires you to disclose any additional related evidence about which you become aware. This duty applies at each level of the administrative review process, including the Appeals Council level if the evidence relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. We will consider only impairment(s) you say you have or about which we receive evidence. When you submit evidence received from another source, you must submit that evidence in its entirety, unless you previously submitted the same evidence to us or we instruct you otherwise. If we ask you, you must inform us about:

(i) Your medical source(s);

(ii) Your age;

(iii) Your education and training;

(iv) Your work experience;

(v) Your daily activities both before and after the date you say that you became disabled;

(vi) Your efforts to work; and

(vii) Any other factors showing how your impairment(s) affects your ability to work, or, if you are a child, your functioning. In §§ 416.960 through 416.969, we discuss in more detail the evidence we need when we consider vocational factors.

(2) Completeness. The evidence in your case record must be complete and detailed enough to allow us to make a determination or decision about whether you are disabled or blind. It must allow us to determine—

(i) The nature and severity of your impairment(s) for any period in question;

(ii) Whether the duration requirement described in § 416.909 is met; and

(iii) Your residual functional capacity to do work-related physical and mental activities, when the evaluation steps described in §§ 416.920(e) or (f)(1) apply, or, if you are a child, how you typically function compared to children your age who do not have impairments.

(3) Statutory blindness. If you are applying for benefits on the basis of statutory blindness, we will require an examination by a physician skilled in diseases of the eye or by an optometrist, whichever you may select.

(b) Our responsibility—(1) Development. Before we make a determination that you are not disabled, we will develop your complete medical history for at least the 12 months preceding the month in which you file your application unless there is a reason to believe that development of an earlier period is necessary or unless you say that your disability began less than 12 months before you filed your application. We will make every reasonable effort to help you get medical evidence from your own medical sources and entities that maintain your medical sources' evidence when you give us permission to request the reports.

(i) Every reasonable effort means that we will make an initial request for evidence from your medical source or entity that maintains your medical source's evidence, and, at any time between 10 and 20 calendar days after the initial request, if the evidence has not been received, we will make one follow-up request to obtain the medical evidence necessary to make a determination. The medical source or entity that maintains your medical source's evidence will have a minimum of 10 calendar days from the date of our follow-up request to reply, unless our experience with that source indicates that a longer period is advisable in a particular case.

(ii) Complete medical history means the records of your medical source(s) covering at least the 12 months preceding the month in which you file your application. If you say that your disability began less than 12 months before you filed your application, we will develop your complete medical history beginning with the month you say your disability began unless we have reason to believe your disability began earlier.

(2) Obtaining a consultative examination. We may ask you to attend one or more consultative examinations at our expense. See §§ 416.917 through 416.919t for the rules governing the consultative examination process. Generally, we will not request a consultative examination until we have made every reasonable effort to obtain evidence from your own medical sources. We may order a consultative examination while awaiting receipt of medical source evidence in some instances, such as when we know a source is not productive, is uncooperative, or is unable to provide certain tests or procedures. We will not evaluate this evidence until we have made every reasonable effort to obtain evidence from your medical sources.

(3) Other work. In order to determine under § 416.920(g) that you are able to adjust to other work, we must provide evidence about the existence of work in the national economy that you can do (see §§ 416.960 through 416.969a), given your residual functional capacity (which we have already assessed, as described in § 416.920(e)), age, education, and work experience.

[82 FR 5874, Jan. 18, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,011 cases (580 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Biestek v. Berryhill
Biestek v. Berryhill (2019) scotus · cites it 2× “…available to someone with his disabilities and indi- vidual characteristics. 20 CFR § 416.912 (b)(3) (2018). To meet that burden, the agency relied on a vocational ex- pert’s testimony that Biestek could qualify for one of 240,000 “bench assembler” jobs or 120,000 “sorter”…”
Ellison v. Barnhart (2003) ca11 · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 416.912 (d) (stating that “[bjefore we make a determination that you are not disabled, we will develop your complete medical history for at least the 12 months preceding the month in which you file your application”); Brown v.”
Marinez v. Commissioner of Social Security (2017) nysd · cites it 6× “§ 423 (d)(5)(B); 20 C.F.R. § 416.912 (d) (effective June 12, 2014, to Apr.”
Roberta Skinner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner (2007) ca7 · cites it 2× “July 2, 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 416.912 (e). Skinner contends the ALJ should have contacted Dr.”
Lowry ex rel. J.B. v. Astrue (2012) ca2 · cites it 4× “1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.912 (d) (stating that before ALJ will determine that claimant is “not disabled, [ALJ] will develop [claimant’s] complete medical history”).”
Bailey v. Roob (2009) ca7 · cites it 7× “Third, they argue that the district court erred as a matter of law by holding that 20 C.F.R. § 416.912 (d), a pro *932 vision of the regulations for the Supplemental Security Income disability program incorporated by reference into the consent decree, did not require a full…”
Nelms v. Astrue (2009) ca7 · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. §§ 416.912 (d)-(f), 416.919, 416.”
Murphy Ex Rel. Murphy v. Astrue (2007) ca7 · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.912 (b), 416.928(b)-(c).”
Maureen Thomas v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (2002) ca9 “Thomas relies on 20 C.F.R. § 416.912 (e) to support her contention.”
Thomas Atha, Jr. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2015) ca11 · cites it 2× “…A claimant for SSI benefits must prove he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.912 ; Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d”
Terry Alan Bellew v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security (2015) ca11 · cites it 4× “3d at 1276 ; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.912 (d) (stating that, before the ALJ determines the claimant is not disabled, “[the ALJ] will develop [the claimant’s] complete medical history for at least the 12 months preceding the.”
Lanikia McCloud v. JoAnne B. Barnhart (2006) ca11 · cites it 3× “Medical Records Under 20 C.F.R. § 416.912 (d), the Commissioner will “develop [the claimant’s] complete medical history for at least the 12 months preceding the month in which [the claimant] file[s][the] application.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(2) — 1 case
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(a) — 5 cases
Hardaway v. Chater (1996) cacd
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(b) — 4 cases
Harris v. Berryhill (2020) ctd
Curtin v. Kijakazi (2023) pamd
Lamberth v. Kijakazi (2025) pamd
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(b)(1) — 2 cases
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(b)(2) — 2 cases
Lehman v. Astrue (2013) mdd
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(b)(5) — 1 case
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(c) — 3 cases
Hilmes v. Barnhart (2004) ca7
Hardaway v. Chater (1996) cacd
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d) — 17 cases
Lehman v. Astrue (2013) mdd
Noble v. Astrue (2011) txnd
Patel v. Colvin (2016) paed
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(f) — 1 case
FLORES v. BERRYHILL (2021) paed
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.