20 C.F.R. § 416.924

How we determine disability for children

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

(a) Steps in evaluating disability. We consider all relevant evidence in your case record when we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled. If you allege more than one impairment, we will evaluate all the impairments for which we have evidence. Thus, we will consider the combined effects of all your impairments upon your overall health and functioning. We will also evaluate any limitations in your functioning that result from your symptoms, including pain (see § 416.929). We will also consider all of the relevant factors in §§ 416.924a and 416.924b whenever we assess your functioning at any step of this process. We follow a set order to determine whether you are disabled. If you are doing substantial gainful activity, we will determine that you are not disabled and not review your claim further. If you are not doing substantial gainful activity, we will consider your physical or mental impairment(s) first to see if you have an impairment or combination of impairments that is severe. If your impairment(s) is not severe, we will determine that you are not disabled and not review your claim further. If your impairment(s) is severe, we will review your claim further to see if you have an impairment(s) that meets, medically equals, or functionally equals the listings. If you have such an impairment(s), and it meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are disabled. If you do not have such an impairment(s), or if it does not meet the duration requirement, we will find that you are not disabled.

(b) If you are working. If you are working and the work you are doing is substantial gainful activity, we will find that you are not disabled regardless of your medical condition or age, education, or work experience. (For our rules on how we decide whether you are engaging in substantial gainful activity, see §§ 416.971 through 416.976.)

(c) You must have a medically determinable impairment(s) that is severe. If you do not have a medically determinable impairment, or your impairment(s) is a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities that causes no more than minimal functional limitations, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment(s) and are, therefore, not disabled.

(d) Your impairment(s) must meet, medically equal, or functionally equal the listings. An impairment(s) causes marked and severe functional limitations if it meets or medically equals the severity of a set of criteria for an impairment in the listings, or if it functionally equals the listings.

(1) Therefore, if you have an impairment(s) that meets or medically equals the requirements of a listing or that functionally equals the listings, and that meets the duration requirement, we will find you disabled.

(2) If your impairment(s) does not meet the duration requirement, or does not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal the listings, we will find that you are not disabled.

(e) Other rules. We explain other rules for evaluating impairments at all steps of this process in §§ 416.924a, 416.924b, and 416.929. We explain our rules for deciding whether an impairment(s) meets a listing in § 416.925. Our rules for how we decide whether an impairment(s) medically equals a listing are in § 416.926. Our rules for deciding whether an impairment(s) functionally equals the listings are in § 416.926a.

(f) If you attain age 18 after you file your disability application but before we make a determination or decision. For the period during which you are under age 18, we will use the rules in this section. For the period starting with the day you attain age 18, we will use the disability rules we use for adults who file new claims, in § 416.920.

(g) How we will explain our findings. When we make a determination or decision whether you are disabled under this section or whether your disability continues under § 416.994a, we will indicate our findings at each step of the sequential evaluation process as we explain in this paragraph. At the initial and reconsideration levels of the administrative review process, State agency medical and psychological consultants will indicate their findings in writing in a manner that we prescribe. The State agency medical or psychological consultant (see § 416.1016) or other designee of the Commissioner has overall responsibility for completing the prescribed writing and must sign the prescribed writing to attest that it is complete, including the findings of fact and any discussion of supporting evidence. Disability hearing officers, administrative law judges and the administrative appeals judges on the Appeals Council (when the Appeals Council makes a decision) will indicate their findings at each step of the sequential evaluation process in their determinations or decisions. In claims adjudicated under the procedures in part 405 of this chapter, administrative law judges will also indicate their findings at each step of the sequential evaluation process in their decisions.

[58 FR 47577, Sept. 9, 1993, as amended at 62 FR 6421, Feb. 11, 1997; 65 FR 54778, Sept. 11, 2000; 71 FR 16460, Mar. 31, 2006; 76 FR 24811, May 3, 2011; 76 FR 41687, July 15, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,153 cases (599 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: L.D.R. by WAGNER v. Berryhill
L.D.R. by WAGNER v. Berryhill (2019) ca7 · cites it 4× “…index="0" url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=20%20C.F.R.%20%C2%A7%20416.924"> 20 C.F.R. § 416.924 (b). In step two, the ALJ determines whether the minor has a medically determinable impairment (or combination of impairments) that is "severe." <extracted-citation…”
Augustine Ex Rel. Ramirez v. Astrue (2008) cacd · cites it 5× “20 C.F.R. § 416.924 . In the First Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; if so, a finding of nondisability is made and the claim is denied.”
Darius Scott v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security (2002) ca7 · cites it 3× “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924 (1996). In particular, under these SSA regulations, the child first had to demonstrate that he was not engaged in substantial gainful employment.”
Hickman Ex Rel. M.A.H. v. Astrue (2010) nynd · cites it 5× “…in determining whether a child can meet the statutory definition of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924 ; Kittles ex rel. Lawton v. Barnhart, <a href="/opinion/2515094/kittles-ex-rel-lawton-v-barnhart/#487" aria-description="Citation for case: Kittles Ex Rel. Lawton v.…”
Johnson v. Astrue (2008) nysd · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 416.924 (a)-(d); see Pollard v.”
Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Commissioner of Social SEC. (2004) ksd · cites it 11× “, is a “severe” impairment, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.924 (c). 32 If the additional impairment does not cause limitations that are “severe” as defined in 20 C.”
Cruz v. Barnhart (2004) nysd · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 416.924 (a); see generally Encamacion ex rel.”
Jeffries v. Astrue (2010) dcd · cites it 9× “20 C.F.R. § 416.924 (2006). First, the Commissioner must determine if the claimant is performing substantial gainful activity.”
Clinkscales ex rel. T.S. v. Colvin (2017) paed · cites it 8× “] does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I (20 CFR 416.924, 416.925 and 416.926). 5.”
Russell Ex Rel. C.G. v. Astrue (2010) gand · cites it 10× “The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.924, 416.925 and 416.926). 5.”
Detra Pollard v. William Halter, Commissioner of Social Security (2004) ca2 · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 416.924 (a). First, the ALJ considers whether the child is engaged in “substantial gainful activity.”
A.B. ex rel. Y.F. v. Colvin (2016) njd · cites it 5× “20 C.F.R. § 416.924 (a). In step one, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a) — 75 cases
Wiszowaty v. Astrue (2012) innd
Clinkscales ex rel. T.S. v. Colvin (2017) paed “] does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I (20 CFR 416.924, 416.925 and 416.926). 5.”
Russell Ex Rel. C.G. v. Astrue (2010) gand “The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.924, 416.925 and 416.926). 5.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(b) — 83 cases
Clinkscales ex rel. T.S. v. Colvin (2017) paed “] does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I (20 CFR 416.924, 416.925 and 416.926). 5.”
Russell Ex Rel. C.G. v. Astrue (2010) gand “The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.924, 416.925 and 416.926). 5.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c) — 81 cases
Clinkscales ex rel. T.S. v. Colvin (2017) paed “] does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I (20 CFR 416.924, 416.925 and 416.926). 5.”
Russell Ex Rel. C.G. v. Astrue (2010) gand “The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.924, 416.925 and 416.926). 5.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d) — 93 cases
Clinkscales ex rel. T.S. v. Colvin (2017) paed “] does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I (20 CFR 416.924, 416.925 and 416.926). 5.”
Russell Ex Rel. C.G. v. Astrue (2010) gand “The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.924, 416.925 and 416.926). 5.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d)(1) — 2 cases
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(f) — 3 cases
Counterman v. Chater (1996) nywd
TALLEY v. KIJAKAZI (2022) insd
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.