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. § 416.946

Responsibility for assessing your residual functional capacity

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

(a) Responsibility for assessing residual functional capacity at the State agency. When a State agency medical or psychological consultant and a State agency disability examiner make the disability determination as provided in § 416.1015(c)(1) of this part, a State agency medical or psychological consultant(s) is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity. When a State agency disability examiner makes a disability determination alone as provided in § 416.1015(c)(3), the disability examiner is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity.

(b) Responsibility for assessing residual functional capacity in the disability hearings process. If your case involves a disability hearing under § 416.1414, a disability hearing officer is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity. However, if the disability hearing officer's reconsidered determination is changed under § 416.1418, the Associate Commissioner for the Office of Disability Determinations or his or her delegate is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity.

(c) Responsibility for assessing residual functional capacity at the administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council level. If your case is at the administrative law judge hearing level or at the Appeals Council review level, the administrative law judge or the administrative appeals judge at the Appeals Council (when the Appeals Council makes a decision) is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity.

[68 FR 51165, Aug. 26, 2003, as amended at 71 FR 16461, Mar. 31, 2006; 75 FR 62683, Oct. 13, 2010; 76 FR 24812, May 3, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 283 cases (208 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Bonnie Hilkemeyer v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 380 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bonnie Hilkemeyer v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 380 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2004). “See 20 C.F.R. 416.946(c) ("If your case is at the [ALJ] hearing level .”
Cardin F. Rutledge v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 230 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2000). “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.946 (stating that, for cases heard before an ALJ, it is the ALJ’s responsibility to determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity).”
Joseph-Jack v. Barnhart, 80 F. App'x 317 (5th Cir. 2003). “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.946 , 416.927(e). Joseph-Jack’s argument that it was inappropriate for the ALJ to consider the opinion of a vocational expert (VE) at Step Four of the sequential evaluation process is also rejected; we have never held as such and have condoned the use of a…”
Farnsworth v. Astrue, 604 F. Supp. 2d 828 (N.D.W. Va. 2009). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 416.946 . When the opinions or findings of state agency medical consultants are included in the record, an ALJ must consider those opinions or findings but is not bound by them.”
Lumpkin v. Colvin, 112 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (D. Colo. 2015). · cites it 2× “See also 20 C.F.R. § 416.946 ; Rutledge v. Apfel, 230 F.”
Smith v. Colvin, 9 F. Supp. 3d 875 (E.D. Wis. 2014). “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.946 (c); S.S.R. 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183 , at *4 (“A medical source statement is evidence that is submitted to SSA by an individual’s medical source reflecting the source’s opinion based on his or her own knowledge, while an RFC assessment is the adjudicator’s…”
Ghini v. Colvin, 82 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Colo. 2015). “See Moses v. Astrue, 2012 WL 1326672 at *4 (D.Colo.”
Bates v. Barnhart, 222 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (D. Kan. 2002). “2000) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.946 ). The out-of-circuit cases Plaintiff cites to the contrary are inapposite.”
Whitzell v. Barnhart, 379 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Mass. 2005). “20 C.F.R. § 416.946 (b). Further, the opinion of a medical doctor as to a claimant’s ability to work is not binding; it is the Commissioner’s responsibility to make the determination of disability and to decide the weight to be given the opinion of a treating medical source.”
Donner v. Barnhart, 285 F. Supp. 2d 800 (S.D. Tex. 2002). “20 C.F.R. § 416.946 , provides that the residual functional capacity will be determined by the ALJ or the Appeals Council and 20 C.”
Bernola v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F. Supp. 3d 857 (N.D. Ohio 2015). “The ALJ will consider any statements from medical sources, whether or not based on formal medical evaluations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.945 (a)(3).”
Barrett v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2022). · cites it 2× “12, 2022) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 416.946 . As long as the ALJ complies with the regulations and substantial evidence supports his evaluation of the medical opinion, the court should affirm.”
Show all 283 citing cases →
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.946(c) — 9 cases
Bonnie Hilkemeyer v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 380 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2004). “See 20 C.F.R. 416.946(c) ("If your case is at the [ALJ] hearing level .”
Hart v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ga. 2019).
Crawley v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin. (N.D. Ga. 2019).
Van Pelt v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ohio 2020).
Leiber v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Ohio 2020).
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.