20 C.F.R. § 416.922
What we mean by an impairment(s) that is not severe in an adult
(a) Non-severe impairment(s). An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.
(b) Basic work activities. When we talk about basic work activities, we mean the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs. Examples of these include—
(1) Physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling;
(2) Capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking;
(3) Understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions;
(4) Use of judgment;
(5) Responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations; and
(6) Dealing with changes in a routine work setting.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 258
cases (196 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Purdy v. Berryhill, 887 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2018).
Purdy v. Berryhill, 887 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2018). “, impairments significantly limiting her ability to perform basic work activities, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.922 ): "status post knee replacement; degenerative disc disease ; right shoulder rotator cuff bone spurs; chronic pain; dysthymia ; anxiety disorder; ADHD; [and] history of…”
Kornecky v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 167 F. App'x 496 (6th Cir. 2006). “20 C.F.R. § 416.922 (b). Mental impairments are evaluated in four functional areas: daily living; social functioning; concentration, persistence, or *499 pace; and episodes of decompensation.”
Bruce v. Berryhill, 294 F. Supp. 3d 346 (E.D. Pa. 2018). “921 were recodified at 20 C.F.R. § 416.922 . For purposes of this opinion, the court will refer to the version of the relevant regulation in effect at the time of the ALJ's decision on March 9, 2017.”
Roza Kolodnay v. Richard Schweiker, as Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 680 F.2d 878 (2d Cir. 1982). “3 The ALJ was required under 20 C.F.R. § 416.922 4 to consider whether in combination these impairments are severe.”
Ghazibayat v. Schweiker, 554 F. Supp. 1005 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “The conclusion of disability is further supported in light of the requirement that Ghazibayat’s claim be considered with reference not only to his back condition but also with regard to the evidence of “moderately severe hypertension” (Tr.”
Walker v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs., Dist. I, Escambia Cty., 533 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). “*838 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.922 (b) and 416.923. Further, under 20 C.”
Smith v. Heckler, 595 F. Supp. 1173 (E.D. Cal. 1984). “It is therefore recommended that a preliminary injunction be granted as to all *1192 future class members, and members whose time for further administrative or judicial review has not expired, enjoining defendants from applying the challenged regulations and rulings, namely: 20…”
Bailey v. Sullivan, 885 F.2d 52 (3rd Cir. 1989). “1522 (1988); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.922 (1988) (identical language for SSI claimants).”
Dixon v. Sullivan, 792 F. Supp. 942 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). “1522 and the related section 20 C.F.R. 416.922 “concern the duration requirement,” SSA nowhere stated that these sections concerned the duration requirement exclusively and thus SSA’s remarks are not sufficient to offset the plain language of Section 404.”
Bennie WISEMAN, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 905 F.2d 1153 (8th Cir. 1990). “1522 (1989); 20 C.F.R. § 416.922 (1989).”
Encarnacion v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2003). “1982) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.922 (1982)). At the same time, the SSA ruled that it would not find that a claimant was “severely” disabled unless he or she had at least one *82 impairment that in itself was severe.”
Moody v. Heckler, 612 F. Supp. 815 (C.D. Ill. 1985). “Second, the plaintiff claims that the Secretary’s use of 20 C.F.R. § 416.922 conflicted with the Act’s requirement that the combined effects of all of a claimant’s impairments be considered in a disability determination.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.922(a) — 4 cases
Chapelle v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D. La. 2023).
Walker v. Berryhill (D. Minnesota 2019).
Diaz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D.N.Y. 2020).
Lillie v. Kijakazi (E.D. Wash. 2023).
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.922(b) — 4 cases
(SS) Mittie v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2022).
(SS) Reyes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2023).
(SS) Carlon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2023).
Justin Neil Flocchini v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2025).
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.