Medical source statements and RFC forms: a field guide for disability claims

The 3 terms get used as if they were one. They are not, and mixing them up is how representatives end up asking a doctor for the wrong thing. Start with the regulation. Residual functional capacity is SSA's finding, defined in 1 sentence:

"Your residual functional capacity is the most you can still do despite your limitations."

Note the word "most." SSR 96-8p repeats it: RFC is not the least a person can do, but the most. A doctor who writes "patient should avoid all lifting" is describing a preference or a precaution. The form asks for a ceiling.

SSA, not the doctor, sets that ceiling. Under 20 CFR 404.1546, a state agency medical or psychological consultant assesses RFC at the initial and reconsideration levels, and the administrative law judge assesses it at a hearing. The physician contributes a medical opinion, which the regulations define in 20 CFR 404.1513(a)(2) as a statement about what the claimant can still do despite their impairments and whether they have limitations in 4 groups of abilities: physical demands, mental demands (including concentration, persistence or pace), other demands such as seeing and hearing, and adapting to environmental conditions such as fumes.

Residual functional capacity (RFC)

SSA's finding of the most a claimant can still do in a work setting on a regular and continuing basis. Made by the state agency consultant, the disability hearing officer, the ALJ or the Appeals Council, depending on the level (20 CFR 404.1546).

Medical source statement (MSS)

A medical source's written opinion about functional limits. SSR 96-8p describes medical source statements as opinions about what the person can still do despite their impairments. The MSS is evidence SSA weighs. It is not the RFC.

RFC form or questionnaire

The structured form an MSS is usually written on. SSA has its own (HA-1151 for physical, HA-1152 for mental), which it uses for claimants on appeal, including with consultative examinations. Representatives often use their own physical, mental or condition-specific versions.

Prior administrative medical finding

The state agency consultants' findings at earlier levels, including their RFC (20 CFR 404.1513(a)(5)). At the hearing, the ALJ weighs these under the same factors as your doctor's opinion.

Acceptable medical source

The list in 20 CFR 404.1502(a). For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, it includes licensed advanced practice registered nurses and licensed physician assistants, within their licensed scope of practice.

That last entry is where many forms waste their best line. A treating doctor writes "totally and permanently disabled" across the bottom, and the ALJ is not required to say a word about it. The regulation goes further than most people realize: a statement of RFC "using our programmatic terms about the functional exertional levels," such as "sedentary" or "light," is also on the reserved list when it replaces a description of functional abilities (20 CFR 404.1520b(c)(3)(v)). "Limited to sedentary work" is a conclusion. "Lifts 10 pounds occasionally, stands and walks about 2 hours in an 8-hour day" is an opinion SSA must weigh.

SSA decides adult disability claims in a fixed order. If it can decide at a step, it stops. RFC does not appear until the claim survives the first 3 steps, and then it carries the rest of the case. The regulation says so plainly:

"Before we go from step 3 to step 4, we assess your residual functional capacity."

20 CFR 404.1545(a)(5) confirms the same RFC is used first at step 4 and again at step 5. At step 5, SSA does not use RFC alone. It combines RFC with the vocational factors and the medical-vocational guidelines in Appendix 2 (the "grids"). This is why the exertional level matters so much for older claimants: whether an RFC lands at sedentary or light can change the outcome under the grids for a claimant of advanced age with no transferable skills. Which grid rule applies is a legal question for the representative; the doctor's job is only to describe function accurately.

SSR 96-8p adds 2 rules that shape how an MSS should be written. First, RFC is assessed "function by function" before it is expressed as an exertional level. SSA must look at each of the 7 strength demands separately, and at postural, manipulative, visual, communicative and mental functions, before it says "light" or "sedentary." Second, the RFC measures sustained work, which the ruling defines:

"A 'regular and continuing basis' means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule."

That sentence is the legal hook for off-task and absence opinions. A person who can lift 20 pounds on a good day but misses 4 days a month is not working on a regular and continuing basis. SSR 96-8p survived the 2017 rescissions (see the FAQ); read its older language about treating sources alongside 20 CFR 404.1520c.

For decades, a treating physician's opinion could win a case on its own. If it was well supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, SSA gave it controlling weight, and it had to give "good reasons" for giving it less (20 CFR 404.1527(c)(2)). That rule still governs claims filed before March 27, 2017. For every claim filed on or after that date, it is gone.

"We will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from your medical sources."

Instead, the adjudicator decides how persuasive each opinion is, using 5 factors. The first 2 are named as the most important, and they are the only 2 the decision must discuss.

The 5 factors, in the regulation's words and in practice

Factor 5 has a detail most people skip: SSA will consider whether evidence received after the opinion makes it more or less persuasive. An MSS written in January can be undercut by a June note saying "doing well, back to the gym." The fix is timing and follow-up, covered in chapter 10.

Source-level articulation

The ALJ does not have to discuss each opinion one by one. Under 20 CFR 404.1520c(b)(1), when a source gives several opinions, the decision can address them together in 1 analysis. For a representative, that cuts both ways. A treating physician who filled out 3 inconsistent forms over 2 years will be judged on the set. Read every prior form in the file before asking for a new one, and ask the doctor to address any change.

What this means in practice

Our view: a 10-year treating relationship is an asset, but it no longer rescues an unexplained checkbox form. A consultant who never met the claimant but cited the MRI and the gait findings can beat a treating doctor whose explanation boxes are blank. The regulation rewards explanation.

Physical RFC forms vary by firm and by condition, but they cover the same ground as SSA's own assessment, because they are built to match 20 CFR 404.1545(b) and SSR 96-8p. Each section asks the doctor for a number. Each number needs a record behind it.

The vocabulary SSA uses

The words on the form have defined meanings, and the doctor should know them before checking boxes. SSR 83-10 defines "occasionally" as occurring from very little up to 1/3 of the time, and "frequent" as occurring from 1/3 to 2/3 of the time. 20 CFR 404.1567 defines the exertional levels by weight: sedentary work lifts no more than 10 pounds at a time; light work, no more than 20 pounds with frequent lifting or carrying of up to 10; medium, no more than 50 with frequent lifting of up to 25; heavy, no more than 100 with frequent lifting of up to 50.

This is the single most useful thing to explain to a doctor filling out a form: the total hours matter as much as the minutes at a time. A form that says "sit 30 minutes at a time" but leaves "total in an 8-hour day" blank gives the ALJ nothing to work with.

Physical RFC categories: what the form asks, and what supports the answer

3 lines to add to any physical form

1. "Basis for this limit" under every section. Most forms have a single explanation box at the end. Doctors skip it. A small box under each section gets filled far more often.
2. "Earliest date these limits applied, and why." A treating source can speak to the period they treated. If the alleged onset date predates the first visit, the doctor should say what records they relied on for the earlier period, or say they cannot tell.
3. "Records reviewed in preparing this opinion." This answers factor 5 in 20 CFR 404.1520c(c)(5) directly: familiarity with the other evidence.

Mental limits are harder to document and easier to dismiss. There is no MRI of concentration. The evidence is in the mental status exams, the therapy notes, the medication history and the pattern of crises, and it is spread across more providers than a back case.

SSA's own state agency worksheet shows how the agency thinks about mental function. Form SSA-4734-F4-SUP, described in POMS DI 24510.060, lists 20 mental function items grouped under 4 categories: understanding and memory, sustained concentration and persistence, social interaction, and adaptation. The POMS is explicit that Section I of that form, the checkbox grid, is a worksheet and not the RFC assessment. The RFC is the narrative in Section III. The same lesson applies to your treating source's form: the checkboxes are a start; the narrative is the opinion.

SSR 96-8p lists the mental activities generally required by competitive work: understanding, carrying out and remembering instructions; using judgment in work-related decisions; responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and work situations; and dealing with changes in a routine work setting. A good mental form walks through each one.

3 traps specific to mental forms

• The "stable" note. Psychiatric follow-up notes often say "stable" or "doing OK." In the prescriber's vocabulary that can mean "no change from last month's poor baseline," not "able to work." If the form reports marked limits and the notes say "stable," the doctor should explain what stable means in this patient.
• The normal mental status exam in a 15-minute med check. Alert, oriented, linear thought, fair insight. That exam measures a short office visit, not 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. The therapist who sees the claimant weekly for an hour may be the better source for concentration and persistence, and a licensed therapist or counselor is a medical source whose opinion SSA weighs under the same factors (20 CFR 404.1502(d) defines a medical source by state licensure and scope of practice).
• Missed appointments counted against the claimant. A no-show can read as noncompliance. If the chart documents that symptoms caused it, the summary should say so and cite the page.

Mental impairments also change physical claims. SSR 96-8p notes that a mental impairment can limit exertional capacity, for example through fatigue. A back case where the claimant also has documented depression or chronic pain affecting attention should include a mental form, or at least the off-task and absence questions, from the treating source who knows both.

Many hearings are decided on 2 lines of the form: how much of the day the claimant would be off task, and how many days a month they would miss. The reason is procedural. At step 5 the ALJ usually hears from a vocational expert (VE), and the questioning follows a pattern.

1. The ALJ poses a hypothetical. A person of the claimant's age, education and work history, with an RFC the ALJ describes.
2. The VE answers. Past work, or other jobs in significant numbers.
3. The ALJ or the representative adds limits. Questions such as "If this individual were off task a given share of the workday beyond normal breaks, would any jobs remain?" and "How many absences a month do employers in these jobs tolerate?" are commonly asked VE hypotheticals.
4. The VE gives an opinion on tolerance. That is evidence, based on the VE's experience and sources, not a rule.
5. The ALJ decides which limits the record supports. A VE's answer to a hypothetical only matters if the ALJ puts that limit in the RFC. That is where the MSS comes in.

Why the basis matters more here than anywhere else

An off-task percentage is an estimate by nature. No clinic measures it. That makes it a target: a bare number with no explanation is easy to call speculative. The way to make it persuasive is to connect it to things the chart does record. Our strong opinion: never send a form that asks for an off-task percentage or absence estimate without also sending the record facts a doctor could base one on.

Notice what the summary does and does not do. It counts visits. It does not say "therefore 3 absences a month." Converting 14 unscheduled visits in a year into an absence estimate is a medical judgment about how the impairment behaves between visits, and it belongs to the doctor. A summary that proposes the answer invites the argument that the representative wrote the opinion.

2 consistency checks before the form goes to the doctor: the claimant's own function report (3 hours of television with the plot followed needs explaining next to a high off-task estimate), and any failed work attempt after onset. An employer's letter about attendance is strong evidence, and SSR 96-8p lists attempts to work among the evidence an RFC must consider.

Supportability, in the words of 20 CFR 404.1520c(c)(1), turns on "the objective medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source." The form itself should carry its evidence. Below is a mock physical MSS from a treating physiatrist in the hypothetical case in chapter 8. Each pin shows the record that supports the entry and what an ALJ would check.

The supportability test, applied line by line

Before a completed form goes into the file, run each entry through 4 questions. If any answer is "no," go back to the doctor with a specific question, not a request to change the answer.

• Is there a number?Hours, pounds, minutes, days, percentages. Not "limited" or "reduced."
• Is there a stated reason?A finding, a test, a documented observation, in the doctor's words on the form.
• Does the reason have a date?So the ALJ can find it in the exhibit file.
• Do the doctor's own notes agree?If the notes say "normal gait" and the form says 15 minutes of walking, the form must explain.
• Do other sources agree?PT, specialists, the consultative exam, the function report. If not, is the difference explained?
• Is the onset date covered?Either the doctor treated then, or the doctor names the earlier records relied on.
• Is it signed, dated and credentialed?A form completed by office staff and unsigned is not a medical opinion.
• Is there any conclusion language?"Disabled," "unable to work," "sedentary": harmless if the functions are also there, useless if they replace them.

0 of 8 checked

Step 1: build the chronology before anyone calls the doctor

The paralegal's first job is not the form. It is a dated, cited list of what each source found, so the representative can see what the record supports before asking anyone for an opinion. Here is the spine of it.

Step 2: check the file against the state agency's findings

The consultants found light work with occasional stooping. Light work requires standing or walking, off and on, for about 6 hours of an 8-hour day (SSR 83-10). The PT sitting and lifting findings, the reflex loss and the cane prescription all postdate or were not addressed in the reconsideration review. That is the argument the MSS has to support: new evidence, received after the prior administrative medical finding, making it less persuasive (20 CFR 404.1520c(c)(5)).

Step 3: send the physiatrist the form, the summary and 3 questions

The representative sends a physical form, a 3-page summary of the physiatrist's own findings plus the PT, EMG and ED records (template 1 in chapter 10), and 3 neutral questions:

1. Onset. "Your first visit was 05/14/2024. The ED record of 03/11/2024 and the MRI of 04/22/2024 are enclosed. Can you say whether the limits you describe applied before your first visit, and on what basis?"
2. The gap. "There were no visits from 02/2025 to 05/2025. The PCP note of 06/2025 documents a loss of insurance. Is your June 2025 exam consistent with the condition having persisted through that period?"
3. The walking note. "Your 03/2026 note records the patient walking 20 minutes daily as advised. Does that change your opinion on standing and walking in a workday?"

None of those questions suggests an answer. Each gives the doctor a chance to address what the ALJ will read anyway. The doctor might say the 20 minutes is a prescribed exercise done in 2 sessions with rest between, which fits a 15-minute standing limit. Or the doctor might revise the standing limit. Either way, the opinion is stronger for having dealt with it, and the representative must submit it either way.

Step 4: mental forms, then the citation table

The back case alone may not carry step 5. The depression evidence (PHQ-9 of 17, failed serial 7s at 3 visits, missed therapy sessions documented as symptom-driven) bears on concentration and attendance, so the psychiatrist and the weekly therapist each get a mental form and their own summary. When the forms come back, the paralegal builds the supportability citation table (template 2 in chapter 10) for the pre-hearing brief.

Step 5: file inside the 5-day window

Hearing on Monday 10/05/2026. Counting back 5 business days, the evidence must be submitted, or SSA informed about it, by Monday 09/28/2026. The representative sets an internal deadline 3 weeks earlier to leave room for a clarifying letter if a form comes back with blank explanation boxes. Chapter 10 has the timing plan.

If you are a treating physician holding one of these forms: you are not being asked whether your patient is disabled. SSA decides that. You are being asked what your patient can still do, and SSA will judge your answer by how well you support and explain it. You may decline, you may answer only the parts you can, and you may write "unable to assess" where the record does not let you say. An honest partial opinion is worth more than a complete one you cannot defend.

2 more points for physicians. Your office may charge for completing forms; that is between you and the representative. And the representative must give SSA the completed form whatever it says (20 CFR 404.1512(a) and 404.1513(b)(2)), so write it as you would for any reader.

A treating doctor asked for an RFC form may not have reread the chart in a year. Sending the form alone asks them to answer from memory, which is how opinions end up contradicting the notes. A short, factual record summary fixes that. Keep it to 2 or 3 pages, and keep it neutral: it reports what is in the chart and never proposes a limit.

1. Collect that source's complete records from the alleged onset date to now, plus the tests they ordered and the outside records they would want (imaging, EMG, PT discharge, ED visits).
2. List their objective findings by date, each cited to a date and page. Use the SSA exhibit and page if the record is already exhibited; otherwise the provider's own page.
3. List treatment and response: medications with dates and side effects, procedures and how long relief lasted, therapy and referrals.
4. Count what the doctor may need to estimate from: unscheduled visits, ED visits, hospital days, procedure days, by month. Counts, not conclusions.
5. Name the gaps and the notes that cut the other way, with the documented reason for a gap if the chart has one.

The timing plan

Under 20 CFR 404.935(a) (SSI: 20 CFR 416.1435), written evidence must be submitted, or the ALJ informed about it, no later than 5 business days before the hearing, or the judge may decline to consider it. The exceptions in 404.935(b) are narrow: SSA misled you, a limitation prevented earlier submission, or an unusual circumstance beyond your control, including evidence you actively and diligently sought that arrived late. Keep proof of the date you requested the form. SSA must mail the hearing notice at least 75 days ahead (20 CFR 404.938(a)), so the window is known. Our rule of thumb: request the opinion as soon as the notice arrives and no later than 6 weeks before the hearing, and set a 3-week internal deadline for its return.

[DATE]

[PHYSICIAN NAME], [CREDENTIALS]
[PRACTICE], [ADDRESS]

Re: [PATIENT NAME], DOB [DATE]
    Request for medical source statement, Social Security disability claim
    Hearing date: [DATE]. Please return by: [DATE, at least 3 weeks before]

Dear Dr. [NAME],

I represent [PATIENT] in a Social Security disability claim. A signed
authorization is enclosed. SSA will decide what [PATIENT] can still do
in a work setting, and it weighs medical opinions mainly on how well
they are supported by findings and how consistent they are with the
rest of the record (20 CFR 404.1520c).

I am asking for your opinion, in your own words. Please:
- give specific numbers (hours, pounds, minutes, days per month);
- note the finding or test, with its date, that supports each limit;
- say from what date the limits have applied and what you relied on;
- write "unable to assess" for anything you cannot support.

To save you time, enclosed is a [N]-page summary of your own records
and the outside tests in the file, each item cited to its date and page:
  1. Objective findings by date
  2. Tests ordered and results: [MRI DATE], [EMG DATE], [OTHER]
  3. Treatment and response, including medication side effects
  4. Counts by month: unscheduled visits, ED visits, procedure days
  5. Gaps in care and any documented reason
  6. Entries you may want to address: [e.g., NOTE DATE, PAGE]

The summary reports what is in the chart; it does not suggest answers.
Please be aware that the completed form is submitted to SSA whatever
it says. Your office's fee for completing forms: [ARRANGEMENT].

Thank you,
[NAME], [TITLE], [FIRM], [PHONE], [EMAIL]
Enclosures: form, authorization, record summary, [RECORDS]

Claimant: [NAME]   Source: [DR NAME, SPECIALTY]   MSS: Ex. [__F] dated [DATE]
Claim filed: [DATE] (on/after 03/27/2017: 20 CFR 404.1520c applies)

LIMIT ON FORM        | SUPPORT (source's own)     | CONSISTENT WITH (others)   | CUTS AGAINST / ANSWER
---------------------|----------------------------|----------------------------|--------------------------
Lift [__] lb occ.    | [finding], [date], Ex.[_] p.[_] | [PT test], Ex.[_] p.[_]  | [note], Ex.[_] p.[_] / [explanation on form?]
Sit [__] min/[__] hr | [finding], [date], Ex.[_] p.[_] | [source], Ex.[_] p.[_]   |
Stand/walk [__]      |                            |                            |
Assistive device     | [Rx date, reason]          |                            |
Postural             |                            |                            |
Manipulative         |                            |                            |
Mental: [category]   | [MSE finding], [date]      | [therapist], Ex.[_] p.[_]  |
Off task [__]        | [basis stated on form]     | [side effects, pain notes] |
Absences [__]/month  | [basis stated on form]     | [visit counts by month]    |
Onset [DATE]         | [first visit / records relied on] |                     |

Prior administrative medical findings: Ex. [__A] ([DATE]). New evidence received after them: [LIST WITH CITES]

MSS work has 2 halves. Finding: reading 600 pages from 6 providers and pulling every strength grade, sitting tolerance, PHQ-9 score and missed visit into a dated list with page cites. Judging: deciding what the patient can do. AI tools are good at much of the first half. The second half belongs to the physician, and the RFC belongs to SSA.

What a large language model does well here

• Drafting an AI medical chronology. Every visit in date order across providers, each entry cited to its page, so the gaps in chapter 8 become visible in minutes.
• Pulling functional findings. Clinical NLP finds strength grades, range of motion, gait observations, tolerance times in PT notes and MSE findings buried in narrative text.
• Counting. Unscheduled visits, ED visits and procedure days by month: the raw material for absence estimates.
• Surfacing contradictions. "Normal gait" on 1 page and "antalgic gait, cane" on another, side by side.

Where it fails

• OCR on faxed records. Optical character recognition can read "4/5" as "45" or a date wrong, and fax quality is common in disability files.
• Handwritten notes. PT flowsheets and older office notes are often handwritten; ambiguous handwriting needs a person.
• Copy-forward text. A templated "no acute distress, gait normal" carried into every note can look like a real finding. A model cannot tell whether the doctor examined gait that day.
• Hallucination. Ask a chatbot "what RFC does this record support?" and generative AI may write a confident answer with no page behind it. That is an opinion no one signed.

Page-level citations, or nothing

A summary sent to a doctor and later placed before an ALJ must be right at every line. Supportability is a citation standard in all but name, which is why grounded, page-level citations fit this work so well. The human-in-the-loop part is the physician, who reads the pages and owns the opinion. The court side shows why: in Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023), lawyers were sanctioned under Rule 11 for filing a brief with case citations a chatbot had fabricated. The same discipline applies to a record summary. Check every cited line at the page before it leaves the office.

Choosing legal AI tools for disability files

For the wider question of AI accuracy, see is AI accurate enough for court and HIPAA-compliant AI medical record review.

Medrecords AI is medical record review software. You upload the records; it drafts a cited medical chronology of every source, with a citation on every line, and tracks work status and functional restrictions as a dated trajectory, so the summary that travels with the form points to real pages. It also flags records that appear to be missing, such as a referral with no specialist note, routes faxed and handwritten pages through OCR with low-confidence pages marked for a person, and answers questions from the record with citations through record Q&A. Flags are signals, not verdicts. A human decides.

What it does not do: it does not fill out the MSS, suggest limits, estimate off-task time or absences, or set an RFC. The physician owns the opinion and SSA decides the RFC. It does not retrieve records from providers, submit evidence to SSA or give legal advice. It works on the files you upload, under SOC 2 and HIPAA with a signed BAA (see security and HIPAA). Self-Service bills 10 cents a deduplicated page, down to 5 cents at volume, duplicates free; Enterprise On-Prem is an annual license.

Is the treating physician rule still in effect?

Only for claims filed before March 27, 2017, under 20 CFR 404.1527. For claims filed on or after that date, 20 CFR 404.1520c says SSA will not defer to or give controlling weight to any medical opinion. It judges persuasiveness, with supportability and consistency as the most important factors.

Is SSR 96-8p still in effect?

It was not among the rulings SSA rescinded in March 2017 (those were SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p and 06-03p), and its definitions of RFC as the most a person can do on a regular and continuing basis, 8 hours a day and 5 days a week, and its function-by-function requirement are still applied. SSA's own manual restates it at POMS DI 24510.006, a version effective February 12, 2025.

What is the 5-day evidence rule?

Under 20 CFR 404.935(a), written evidence must be submitted, or the ALJ told about it, no later than 5 business days before the hearing. Otherwise the ALJ may decline to consider it unless an exception in 404.935(b) applies, such as evidence you diligently sought that arrived late.

Can a representative leave an unfavorable MSS out of the file?

No. A claimant must inform SSA about or submit all evidence known that relates to disability (20 CFR 404.1512(a)), and the work product doctrine does not protect a completed opinion form (20 CFR 404.1513(b)(2)).

Can a nurse practitioner or physician assistant complete an MSS?

Yes. For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, licensed APRNs and physician assistants are acceptable medical sources within their licensed scope of practice (20 CFR 404.1502(a)(7) and (8)), and every medical source's opinion is weighed under the same factors.

Can AI fill out a medical source statement?

It should not. The MSS is the medical source's own opinion, and a form drafted by software undercuts its supportability and its credibility. AI can help the representative prepare a cited summary of the record for the doctor to review. The doctor decides the limits.

Is it HIPAA compliant to upload medical records to AI?

It can be, if the vendor signs a business associate agreement, protects the data with controls you can verify, such as a SOC 2 report, and does not train its models on your records. Ask for the BAA before the first upload.

Can ChatGPT summarize medical records for a disability claim?

A consumer chatbot without a BAA should not receive client records. Even a compliant general model can misread faxed pages, treat copied template text as a finding, or invent a fact. Whatever tool you use, check every cited line against the page before it goes to a doctor or into the file.

Regulations and rulings were checked against primary sources in September 2026, and quoted text is verbatim. The claimant R., the forms, dates, findings and exhibit numbers in chapters 7 and 8 are hypothetical. VE practice in chapter 6 is described as commonly asked hypotheticals; no tolerance figure is given because no regulation sets one. Product facts come from this site's product pages. Nothing here is legal or medical advice.

• 20 CFR 404.1545 (RFC) and 20 CFR 416.945 (SSI); 404.1546 (who assesses RFC).
• 20 CFR 404.1520, the 5-step sequential evaluation, (a)(4) and (e).
• 20 CFR 404.1520c and 416.920c, opinion evaluation for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017; 404.1527 for earlier claims.
• 20 CFR 404.1513 (categories of evidence, (a)(2) medical opinion, (b)(2) opinion forms) and 404.1520b(c)(3) (issues reserved to the Commissioner).
• 20 CFR 404.1512(a) (duty to submit all evidence) and 404.1502(a)(7) and (8) (APRNs and PAs).
• 20 CFR 404.1567, physical exertion requirements.
• 20 CFR 404.935 (5-day evidence rule) and 404.938 (75-day hearing notice).
• SSR 96-8p, Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims (1996), restated in POMS DI 24510.006 (effective February 12, 2025).
• SSR 83-10, definitions of occasionally, frequent, sedentary and light work.
• POMS DI 24510.060, Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment (Form SSA-4734-F4-SUP).
• Rescission of SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p and 06-3p, 82 FR 15263 (March 27, 2017).
• Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023): Rule 11 sanctions for filing fabricated AI-generated case citations.

Related guides: attending physician statements, how to get medical records, what is a medical chronology, and Social Security disability record review.