20 C.F.R. § 416.965

Your work experience as a vocational factor

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

(a) General. Work experience means skills and abilities you have acquired through work you have done which show the type of work you may be expected to do. Work you have already been able to do shows the kind of work that you may be expected to do. We consider that your work experience applies when it was done within the last five years, lasted long enough for you to learn to do it, and was substantial gainful activity. We do not usually consider that work you did more than five years before the time we are deciding whether you are disabled applies. A gradual change occurs in most jobs so that after five years it is no longer realistic to expect that skills and abilities acquired in a job done then continue to apply. If you have no work experience or you did work that started and stopped in a period of fewer than 30 calendar days (see § 416.960(b)(1)(ii)) during the five-year period, we generally consider that these do not apply. If you have acquired skills through your past work, we consider you to have these work skills unless you cannot use them in other skilled or semi-skilled work that you can now do. If you cannot use your skills in other skilled or semi-skilled work, we will consider your work background the same as unskilled. However, even if you have no work experience, we may consider that you are able to do unskilled work because it requires little or no judgment and can be learned in a short period of time.

(b) Information about your work. Under certain circumstances, we will ask you about the work you have done in the past. If you cannot give us all of the information we need, we may try, with your permission, to get it from your employer or other person who knows about your work, such as a member of your family or a co-worker. When we need to consider your work experience to decide whether you are able to do work that is different from what you have done in the past, we will ask you to tell us about all of the jobs you have had in the last five years. You must tell us the dates you worked, all of the duties you did, and any tools, machinery, and equipment you used. We will need to know about the amount of walking, standing, sitting, lifting and carrying you did during the workday, as well as any other physical or mental duties of your job. If all of your work in the past five years has been arduous and unskilled, and you have very little education, we will ask you to tell us about all of your work from the time you first began working. This information could help you to get disability benefits.

[89 FR 27667, Apr. 18, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 652 cases (424 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Mills v. Social Security
Mills v. Social Security (2001) ca1 “20 C.F.R. § 416.965 (a). Thus, according to Mills, the ALJ should not have considered whether Mills could return to her prior jobs, but should have instead required the Commissioner to show that there were other jobs reasonably available to Mills that she could perform.”
Marie McDaniel v. Otis R. Bowen , Secretary of Health and Human Services (1986) ca11 “See, 20 C.F.R. § 416.965 ; SSR 82-63 (CE 1982).”
Connie L. BAKER, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee (1992) ca8 “First, under 20 C.F.R. § 416.965 (a) (1991), the Secretary considers prior work experience when it was done within the past fifteen years, lasted long enough to learn the job, and constituted substantial gainful activity.”
Billie J. KNIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee (1995) ca7 “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.965 (a) (stating that work that “lasted long enough for [the claimant] to learn to do it” may qualify as “work experience”).”
Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security (2016) ohnd “The ALJ further determined that Plaintiff had no past relevant work ( 20 C.F.R. § 416.965 ); that she was born on October 23, 1968 and was 43 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the date the application was filed ( 20 C.”
Tanya Buckner v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2000) ca8 “” See 20 C.F.R. § 416.965 (a); Terrell v. Apfel, 147 F.”
Margaret Wallschlaeger v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1983) ca7 · cites it 2× “*196 Among the factors is the applicant’s previous work experience, defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.965 (a) as experience acquired in a job held within the last 15 years.”
Masters v. Commissioner of Social Security (2017) ca6 “1 The ALJ accepted the VE’s testimony as to Masters’ inability to perform past relevant work under 20 C.F.R. § 416.965 and the limitations consistent with the ALJ’s evaluation of the record as a whole.”
Morales v. Berryhill (2017) caed “The claimant has no past relevant work ( 20 C.F.R. § 416.965 ). 6. The claimant was born on June 1, 1967 and was 44 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the date the application was filed ( 20 C.”
Paula VARGAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appelle (1990) ca2 “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.965 (a). At the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge on March 5, 1987, Mrs.”
Settles v. Colvin (2015) dcd “The claimant has no past relevant work ( 20 C.F.R. § 416.965 ). 6. The claimant was born on September 30, 1966 and was 43 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 1849, on the date the application was filed ( 20 C.”
Ernestine KEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appella (1991) ca7 “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.965 (a). Among Kortsch’s findings was that Key had the residual functional capacity of performing only sedentary work, and that “net work as an assembler did not require the performance of work related activities which were other than sedentary.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.965(a) — 7 cases
Tackett v. Chater (1995) kyed
Bair v. Kijakazi (2023) ned
Wade v. Kijakazi (2024) ned
Banks v. Apfel (2001) kyed
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.