C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER III—SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION › PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED › Subpart I—Determining Disability and Blindness

20 C.F.R. § 416.923

Multiple impairments

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

(a) Unrelated severe impairments. We cannot combine two or more unrelated severe impairments to meet the 12-month duration test. If you have a severe impairment(s) and then develop another unrelated severe impairment(s) but neither one is expected to last for 12 months, we cannot find you disabled, even though the two impairments in combination last for 12 months.

(b) Concurrent impairments. If you have two or more concurrent impairments that, when considered in combination, are severe, we must determine whether the combined effect of your impairments can be expected to continue to be severe for 12 months. If one or more of your impairments improves or is expected to improve within 12 months, so that the combined effect of your remaining impairments is no longer severe, we will find that you do not meet the 12-month duration test.

(c) Combined effect. In determining whether your physical or mental impairment or impairments are of a sufficient medical severity that such impairment or impairments could be the basis of eligibility under the law, we will consider the combined effect of all of your impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of sufficient severity. If we do find a medically severe combination of impairments, we will consider the combined impact of the impairments throughout the disability determination process. If we do not find that you have a medically severe combination of impairments, we will determine that you are not disabled (see §§ 416.920 and 416.924).

[82 FR 5879, Jan. 18, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 163 cases (83 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Janet Wier, on Behalf of Her Son, John P. Wier, a Minor v. Margaret M. Heckler, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 734 F.2d 955 (3rd Cir. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Janet Wier, on Behalf of Her Son, John P. Wier, a Minor v. Margaret M. Heckler, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 734 F.2d 955 (3rd Cir. 1984). · cites it 6× “The Secretary has implemented this provision through 20 C.F.R. § 416.923 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.926 .”
Encarnacion Ex Rel. George v. Astrue, 568 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “In 1985, the SSA adopted a regulation that repeats this statute nearly verbatim. See Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income; Determining Disability and Blindness; Multiple Impairments, 50 Fed.”
L.D.R. by WAGNER v. Berryhill, 920 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir. 2019). “20 C.F.R. §§ 416.923 , 416.924a(b)(4), and 416.”
Banks v. ASTURE, 537 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 3× “Additionally, 20 C.F.R. § 416.923 , provides, in relevant part: [i]n determining whether your physical or mental impairment or impairments are of a sufficient medical severity that such impairment or impairments could be the basis of eligibility under the law, we will consider…”
Lillie DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna SHALALA, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 985 F.2d 528 (11th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “” See 20 C.F.R. § 416.923 . In sequential evaluation step three, the Secretary determines whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals a disability described in the Listing of Impairments, which describes impairments that are considered severe enough to prevent a person from…”
Sherry Howard, on Behalf of Sarah Wolff v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 341 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2003). “20 C.F.R. § 416.923 . However, in interpreting the evidence and developing the record, the ALJ does not need to “discuss every piece of evidence.”
Carpenter v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2008). “1523 ); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.923 (parallel regulation for assessing Title XVI claims).”
Thelma L. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 826 F.2d 996 (11th Cir. 1987). “; 20 C.F.R. § 416.923 . It is clear that in this case the AU did not consider the combination of Walker’s impairments before determining her residual functional capacity.”
Essie D. COOK, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 783 F.2d 1168 (4th Cir. 1986). “We find it unnecessary, however, to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s determination that Cook is not disabled due to mental illness, because we conclude that the Secretary improperly focused on each of Cook’s impairments separately and…”
Jerome G. WEIKERT, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 977 F.2d 1249 (8th Cir. 1992). “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.923 (1991). If the impairment is severe, but neither meets nor equals the listings, the AU must determine whether the claimant has sufficient “residual functional-capacity” to do his prior work.”
Alarid v. Colvin, 590 F. App'x 789 (10th Cir. 2014). “2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.923 ; § 416.908. In formulating his RFC assessment, the ALJ must discuss the combined effect of all the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, both severe and nonsevere.”
Ruth A. KISLING, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., Appellee, 105 F.3d 1255 (8th Cir. 1997). “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.923 ; Weikert v. Sullivan, 977 F.”
Show all 163 citing cases →
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.923(a) — 1 case
Watson v. O'Malley (N.D. Ill. 2024).
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.923(c) — 1 case
Burton v. Saul (N.D. Ill. 2023).
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.