# Medical source statement and RFC forms for SSDI claims (2026)

> How SSA weighs a medical source statement under the 2017 rules, what physical and mental RFC forms ask, and how to cite the records behind every limit.

Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/guides/medical-source-statement-rfc/

---
New — **Missing Records Detection:** flags every visit, provider, and date missing from the file. [See how →](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/)
Field guide, September 2026. 14 chapters.

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

For SSDI and SSI representatives, disability paralegals and the treating physicians they ask to fill out forms. You walk away with the rules SSA applies, a map from each form section to the records that support it, a cover letter and a supportability citation table.

By [Ahmed Jemaa](https://medrecords.ai/authors/ahmed-jemaa/), Co-Founder and CEO, Medrecords AI. Published 25 September 2026.

A medical source statement is a treating or examining provider's written opinion about what a disability claimant can still do despite their impairments: hours of sitting, standing and walking, weight lifted and carried, time off task and absences a month. For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, SSA judges how persuasive it is, mainly by supportability and consistency, when it assesses residual functional capacity (RFC).

In most disability hearings, the chart says what is wrong and nobody has written down what the person can still do. The medical source statement is where a doctor turns "L5-S1 radiculopathy" into "sits 20 minutes at a time," and it is also where most opinions fall apart, because the numbers on the form do not trace back to anything in the doctor's own notes.

This guide is built from the Social Security regulations at 20 CFR 404.1502, 404.1512, 404.1513, 404.1520, 404.1520b, 404.1520c, 404.1527, 404.1545, 404.1546, 404.1567, 404.935 and 404.938 (and their SSI twins in Part 416), Social Security Rulings 96-8p and 83-10, the Program Operations Manual System at DI 24510.060, and SSA's March 2017 notice rescinding SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p and 06-03p. Every case example is a labeled hypothetical. Nothing here is legal or medical advice, and nothing here tells a physician what limits to write. The opinion belongs to the person who signs it.

8 numbers

### The medical source statement in 8 numbers

03/27/2017
claims filed on or after this date get the persuasiveness rules; the treating physician rule applies only before it
20 CFR 404.1520c and 404.1527
2 of 5
factors SSA calls most important: supportability and consistency
20 CFR 404.1520c(a) and (b)(2)
8 hrs x 5 days
the "regular and continuing basis" an RFC measures, or an equivalent schedule
SSR 96-8p
7
strength demands: sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling
SSR 96-8p
20 items
on SSA's own mental RFC worksheet, grouped in 4 categories
POMS DI 24510.060
1/3
of the workday: the ceiling of "occasionally"; "frequent" runs from 1/3 to 2/3
SSR 83-10
5 business days
before the hearing: last day to submit written evidence or tell the ALJ about it
20 CFR 404.935(a)
75 days
minimum notice SSA gives before an ALJ hearing
20 CFR 404.938(a)
Chapter 1 Everyone

### MSS, RFC and the RFC form: who decides what

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](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-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)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1513) 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 questionnaireThe 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 findingThe 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 sourceThe 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)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1520b) ). "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.

MythThe treating doctor gives the claimant an RFC.
RuleThe doctor gives a medical opinion. SSA assesses RFC from all the evidence, including that opinion (20 CFR 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546).
Myth"My patient is disabled" is the strongest thing a doctor can write.
RuleIt is the weakest. It is a statement on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, and SSA does not analyze it (20 CFR 404.1520b(c)(3)(i)).
If you remember one thing
Ask the doctor for functional numbers with reasons, never for a conclusion. The ALJ writes the RFC; the doctor supplies evidence that is hard to ignore.

Chapter 2 Everyone

### Where RFC enters the 5-step sequential evaluation

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."

**The 5 steps and where the MSS does its work** — 5 steps — 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4); SSI at 416.920
Step 1 — **Substantial gainful activity** — Working above the SGA level ends the claim. No medical evidence needed to decide it.
Step 2 — **Severe impairment, 12-month duration** — A medically determinable impairment that significantly limits basic work activities. The chart does most of the work here.
Step 3 — **Meets or equals a listing** — If yes, the claim is allowed without RFC. Most claims do not meet a listing and move on.
RFC — **Assessed here, once** — The most the claimant can do, function by function. The MSS is weighed at this point, against the consultants' findings.
Step 4 — **Past relevant work** — RFC compared with the demands of past work. If the claimant can still do it, the claim is denied.
Step 5 — **Other work in the national economy** — The same RFC plus age, education and work experience. Medical-vocational rules and vocational expert testimony decide it.
One RFC, used twice. Every limit the ALJ accepts or rejects at the RFC stage flows into both step 4 and step 5.

[20 CFR 404.1545(a)(5)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1545) 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.

If you remember one thing
RFC is assessed once, between step 3 and step 4, and then used twice. A limit that does not make it into the RFC does not exist at step 5.

Chapter 3 Deciding

### The 2017 rules: persuasiveness, supportability and consistency

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)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1527) ). 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.

##### Claims filed before 03/27/2017

Rule20 CFR 404.1527Treating sourceControlling weight if well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidenceLanguage"Weight": controlling, great, some, littleWhat the ALJ must explainGood reasons for the weight given a treating sourceWhat winsOften the length of the treating relationship

##### Claims filed on or after 03/27/2017

Rule20 CFR 404.1520cTreating sourceNo deference. Weighed like every other sourceLanguage"Persuasive": how persuasive, and whyWhat the ALJ must explainSupportability and consistency for each source's opinionsWhat winsThe opinion that shows its work and matches the rest of the file

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

| Factor | What 20 CFR 404.1520c(c) says | What it means on a form |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. Supportability | The more relevant the objective medical evidence and supporting explanations a source presents, the more persuasive the opinion | Each limit sits next to the exam finding, image or test that supports it, with a date. Chapter 7 is about this factor. |
| 2. Consistency | The more consistent the opinion is with evidence from other medical and nonmedical sources, the more persuasive | The limits agree with the PT notes, the specialist, the pharmacy record and the claimant's reported activities, or the form explains why not. |
| 3. Relationship | Length, frequency, purpose and extent of treatment, and whether the source examined the claimant | State when treatment began, how often you see the patient and what you have ordered. It still counts; it just cannot carry a thin form. |
| 4. Specialization | A specialist may be more persuasive about issues in their specialty | A psychiatrist on concentration, a rheumatologist on inflammatory disease. A family doctor can still speak to what they have observed. |
| 5. Other factors | Including familiarity with the other evidence and understanding of SSA's program policies | Say which outside records you reviewed. An opinion written after reading the MRI and the PT discharge is more persuasive than one from memory. |

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.

If you remember one thing
Under 20 CFR 404.1520c, the ALJ must explain supportability and consistency. Give the ALJ an opinion where both are easy to write in your favor.

Chapter 4 Building

### What a physical RFC form asks, and the records behind each answer

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)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1545) 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](https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR83-10-di-02.html) 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](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-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.

**How the 8-hour day divides at sedentary and light exertion** — approximate hours — SSR 83-10
Sedentarylifts 10 lb max
sitting about 6 hours — stand/walk about 2
Lightlifts 20 lb max, 10 lb frequently
sitting, intermittent — stand/walk about 6 hours, off and on
**Sitting — **Standing and walking
A doctor who writes "can sit 4 hours and stand or walk 2 hours in an 8-hour day" has described less than the full range of sedentary work, which assumes about 6 hours of sitting. The form does not need to say "less than sedentary"; the numbers do it.

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

| Category | What the form asks | Records that support the answer |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Lift and carry | Weight occasionally and frequently; sometimes by hand | Motor strength grades by muscle group, grip dynamometer readings, PT or functional capacity evaluation lifting tests, surgical restrictions, imaging of the spine or joints |
| Stand and walk | Minutes at a time; total hours in an 8-hour day | Gait observations, straight leg raise, reflex and sensory loss, EMG results, PT walking tolerance, cardiac or pulmonary testing |
| Sit | Minutes at a time; total hours; need to change position at will | PT sitting tolerance, documented shifting or standing during visits, spinal imaging, pain diaries entered in the chart |
| Assistive device | Is a cane or walker medically required, and when? | The prescription, the reason, and exam findings of instability or falls. SSR 96-9p looks for documentation of the need and the circumstances. |
| Postural | Climbing ramps and stairs, ladders, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling | Range of motion measurements, joint exams, vestibular testing, imaging |
| Manipulative | Reaching (overhead and other), handling, fingering, feeling, each side | Grip strength, EMG and nerve conduction for carpal tunnel or cervical radiculopathy, Tinel and Phalen signs, joint swelling, rheumatology labs |
| Off task | Percentage of the workday off task from symptoms or medication effects | Pain documented at each visit, medication side effects (drowsiness, dizziness), migraine frequency, fatigue in treatment notes, observations of distraction in the exam room |
| Absences | Days a month likely absent from impairments or treatment | Frequency of flares, ED and urgent visits, infusion or injection schedules, hospitalizations, post-procedure recovery days, appointment frequency |
| Onset and duration | Since when do these limits apply; have they lasted or will they last 12 months | The dated sequence of visits showing when the findings first appeared, and the doctor's first visit date |

#### 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.

If you remember one thing
Every box on a physical RFC form has a record that should sit behind it. If you cannot name that record, the doctor probably cannot either, and the ALJ will notice.

Chapter 5 Building

### What a mental RFC form asks, and the records behind each answer

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](https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0424510060), 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.

| Category | What the form asks | Records that support the answer |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Understanding and memory | Remember locations and procedures; understand and remember short, simple instructions; detailed instructions | Memory items on mental status exams, cognitive screening scores, neuropsychological testing, documented confusion about medications or appointments |
| Concentration and persistence | Attention for extended periods; keeping a schedule; sustaining a routine without special supervision; completing a normal workday and week at a consistent pace | Serial 7s or digit span on MSE, observed distractibility, therapist notes of missed sessions, sleep disturbance, medication side effects, documented panic episodes |
| Social interaction | Interact with the public; accept instructions and respond to criticism from supervisors; get along with co-workers; maintain socially appropriate behavior | Observed affect and behavior at visits, documented conflicts, police or crisis contacts, inpatient notes, collateral reports from family |
| Adaptation | Respond to changes; be aware of hazards; travel to unfamiliar places; set goals independently | Decompensation after stressors, hospitalizations, partial hospitalization or intensive outpatient programs, structured living arrangements, need for reminders from others |
| Off task and absences | Percentage of the day off task; days a month absent | Frequency of crisis visits, depressive episodes documented as keeping the patient in bed, missed appointments explained by symptoms, therapy frequency |
| Medication effects | Side effects that limit function | Each medication trial, dose, date started and stopped, side effects reported, and reasons for change, from prescriber notes and the pharmacy record |

#### 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.

If you remember one thing
For mental forms, the checkbox grid is a worksheet. The narrative explaining each marked limit, with the MSE findings and dates behind it, is the opinion SSA weighs.

Chapter 6 Deciding

### Off-task time and absences: why they decide step 5

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.

MythSSA has a rule that a certain off-task percentage or number of absences means disabled.
RuleNo regulation sets a number. The tolerance figure comes from VE testimony in each hearing, and VEs differ. The legal hook is SSR 96-8p's "regular and continuing basis": 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
MythIf the doctor writes a high off-task number, the ALJ has to accept it.
RuleThe ALJ weighs it for supportability and consistency like any other limit. A percentage with no stated basis is the easiest line on the form to reject.

#### 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.

| Estimate | Recorded facts a doctor can reason from | What the summary should give the doctor |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Off task | Pain reported at every visit with its effect on activity; need to change position documented by PT; migraine frequency and duration from a headache log in the chart; sedation or dizziness from medications; observed distraction or slowed responses in exams | A dated list of those findings with page cites, and the medication list with side effects reported |
| Absences | Unscheduled visits for flares; ED visits; hospital days; procedure and recovery days; infusion or injection schedule; frequency of required appointments; crisis contacts | A count of each, by month, for the last 12 months, cited to the visits |

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.

If you remember one thing
Off-task and absence limits often decide step 5, and they are the easiest to reject when unexplained. Give the doctor the counted, cited facts; let the doctor give the estimate.

Chapter 7 Building

### Anatomy of a persuasive MSS: every section pinned to a record

Supportability, in the words of [20 CFR 404.1520c(c)(1)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1520c), 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.

**A physical MSS where every section points to a page** — hypothetical — Illustration; exhibit numbers invented for the example
Medical source statement: physical Treating physiatrist, hypothetical
Treatment relationship
First seen / frequency — 05/14/2024; every 4 to 8 weeks1
Diagnoses and objective findings
Diagnoses — L5-S1 disc protrusion, left S1 radiculopathy2
Exertional
Lift and carry — 10 lb occasionally under 10 lb frequently3
Sit — 20 min at a time; about 4 hrs total4
Stand and walk — 15 min at a time; about 2 hrs total4
Cane — Required for walking outdoors and uneven ground5
Postural
Ladders / stoop — Never / occasionally6
Sustained work
Off task — Doctor's estimate, with reasons stated7
Absences per month — Doctor's estimate, with reasons stated8
Onset and review
Limits apply since — 03/11/20249
Records reviewed — MRI, EMG, PT discharge, ED record10
Ex. 11F p. 1
1. 1
**Relationship, stated** Factor 3. First visit date and frequency, checkable against the office notes (Ex. 7F). Note it postdates the alleged onset by 2 months; pin 9 has to deal with that.
2. 2
**Objective basis** MRI 04/22/2024 (Ex. 3F p. 1) shows the protrusion contacting the left S1 root; EMG 06/05/2024 (Ex. 4F p. 2) shows chronic left S1 radiculopathy. Diagnosis plus the test that proves it.
3. 3
**Lift and carry** Left plantar flexion 4/5 and absent left ankle reflex (Ex. 7F p. 5); PT discharge lifting test stopped at 10 lb for pain and form (Ex. 5F p. 38). The exam is supportability; the PT test is consistency.
4. 4
**Sit, stand, walk** PT documented sitting tolerance of 20 minutes before standing to relieve leg pain, at 6 separate sessions (Ex. 5F pp. 12 to 30). Under 6 hours of sitting is below the full sedentary range in SSR 83-10, and the numbers say so without the label.
5. 5
**Assistive device** Cane prescribed 06/10/2025 for antalgic gait and 2 documented falls (Ex. 7F pp. 5, 9). The need and the circumstances are both on the form.
6. 6
**Postural** Lumbar flexion limited to 40 degrees with leg pain (Ex. 7F p. 5). A limit without a range of motion measurement is where ALJs push back.
7. 7
**Off task** The estimate is the doctor's. The basis the summary supplied: pain rated at every visit, position changes documented in PT, and daytime drowsiness from gabapentin reported 3 times (Ex. 7F pp. 11, 14, 19).
8. 8
**Absences** The summary counted 9 unscheduled visits and 2 injection days in 12 months (Ex. 2F, 4F, 6F). The doctor converts that into an estimate and says why.
9. 9
**Onset** The doctor first saw the patient 05/14/2024 but reviewed the ED record of 03/11/2024 (Ex. 2F p. 3: positive left straight leg raise) and the April MRI. The form says so.
10. 10
**Familiarity** Factor 5 in 20 CFR 404.1520c(c)(5): familiarity with the other evidence.

10 pins, 10 records. An ALJ checking any line of this form finds the page in under a minute. That is what supportability looks like on paper.

#### 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

If you remember one thing
Put the exhibit and page on the form itself. A doctor's opinion that cites "MRI 04/22/2024, Ex. 3F p. 1" does the ALJ's supportability analysis for them.

Chapter 8 Building

### Worked example: from 600 pages to a supported opinion

**Hypothetical.** Every person, date, finding and exhibit number below is invented to show the method. It is not a real claimant, a customer or a case outcome. Claimant "R.," age 52, former warehouse order picker (medium exertion as performed). SSDI claim filed 08/2024 alleging onset 03/11/2024 from lumbar radiculopathy and depression. Denied initially and on reconsideration; the state agency consultants found a light RFC with occasional stooping and no mental limits beyond simple tasks. ALJ hearing notice received 07/2026 for a hearing on 10/05/2026. The file holds about 600 pages from 6 providers.

#### 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.

**R.'s record, the entries that bear on function** — hypothetical — Illustration
1. 03/11/2024
**ED visit after lifting at work**
Low back pain radiating down the left leg. Positive left straight leg raise at 40 degrees. Discharged on NSAIDs and a muscle relaxant.

Ex. 2F p. 3
2. 04/22/2024
**Lumbar MRI**
Left paracentral disc protrusion at L5-S1 contacting the left S1 nerve root.

Ex. 3F p. 1
3. 05/14/2024
**First physiatry visit**
Left plantar flexion 4/5, diminished left ankle reflex. Referred for EMG and PT.

Ex. 7F p. 1
4. 06/05/2024
**EMG and nerve conduction study**
Chronic left S1 radiculopathy.

Ex. 4F p. 2
5. 07/2024 to 10/2024
**18 PT sessions**
Sitting tolerance 20 minutes at 6 sessions; lifting test stopped at 10 lb; discharged at a plateau.

Ex. 5F pp. 1 to 40
6. 09/2024, 01/2025
**2 epidural steroid injections**
About 2 weeks of partial relief each time.

Ex. 4F pp. 9, 14
7. 11/19/2024
**PCP: depression screen**
PHQ-9 score of 17; poor sleep, low energy, trouble concentrating. Sertraline started; psychiatry referral.

Ex. 6F p. 22
8. 02/2025 to 05/2025
**No spine or psychiatry visits**
A 4-month gap. The 06/2025 PCP note documents lost insurance after COBRA ended. Without that page, the gap reads as improvement.

Explained at Ex. 6F p. 30
9. 06/10/2025
**Physiatry after the gap**
Absent left ankle reflex, lumbar flexion 40 degrees, antalgic gait, 2 falls reported. Cane prescribed.

Ex. 7F pp. 5, 9
10. 2025 to 2026
**Psychiatry, 9 visits**
MSE: slowed speech, poor concentration (could not complete serial 7s at 3 visits). Bupropion added. Therapist notes weekly sessions with 5 missed, 4 of them documented as "unable to get out of bed."

Ex. 8F, 9F
11. 03/2026
**A note that cuts the other way**
Physiatry: "Patient reports walking 20 minutes daily as advised."

Ex. 10F p. 4

The timeline shows the representative what the doctor will need to address: an onset before the doctor's first visit, a 4-month gap and a note about walking 20 minutes a day.

#### 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 remember one thing
Read the whole file before you draft the request. The gap, the onset problem and the note that cuts the other way are what the ALJ will ask about. Give the doctor the chance to answer them first.

Chapter 9 Deciding

### For the physician asked to complete an MSS

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.

**Completing a medical source statement: a decision path** — 6 questions — Built from 20 CFR 404.1520c, 404.1520b(c)(3) and SSR 96-8p
1
**Have you treated or examined this patient for the conditions on the form?**
YesState the first visit date and how often you see them. That is factor 3.
NoSay so, or decline. An opinion on conditions you have not treated carries little weight.
2
**Do you have your own records and the key outside tests in front of you?**
YesList what you reviewed on the form. That is factor 5, familiarity with the evidence.
NoAsk the representative for them before answering. Do not answer from memory.
3
**Can you point to a finding for each limit you would write?**
YesWrite the finding and its date next to the limit.
NoLeave that limit out, or explain the clinical reasoning that supports it without a test.
4
**Do any of your notes seem to contradict the limit?**
YesExplain it: what "stable" meant, why a normal exam in the office does not show 8 hours of work.
NoProceed. Consistency with other sources is the ALJ's next check.
5
**Does the form ask for an onset date before you first saw the patient?**
YesAnswer only if earlier records support it, and name them. Otherwise say the limits applied at least since your first visit.
NoGive the date the findings first appeared in your notes.
6
**Are you tempted to write "disabled" or "sedentary"?**
InsteadWrite the functions: hours, pounds, minutes, days a month, with reasons.
If you doAdd the functions anyway. The conclusion alone is not analyzed (20 CFR 404.1520b(c)(3)).
Every "yes" becomes a cited sentence on the form. Every "no" becomes a stated limit on what you can say. Neither becomes a blank.

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.

If you remember one thing
The opinion is yours. Write only limits you can support from your own findings, say what you relied on, and say "unable to assess" where you cannot.

Chapter 10 Building

### The record summary, the timing and 2 templates

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)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.935) (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)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.938) ), 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.

##### 1. Cover letter to a treating physician, with record summary

Send with the blank form and the summary. Fill the brackets; do not add suggested answers.

[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]

##### 2. Supportability citation table

Build it when the form comes back. It goes in the pre-hearing brief and shows the ALJ where supportability and consistency live in the file.

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]
If you remember one thing
Send the summary with the form, request it the week the hearing notice arrives, and keep proof of the request date. A form that arrives inside the 5-day window may never be read.

Chapter 11 Everyone

### AI medical record review for MSS preparation: where it helps and where it fails

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

1 —

##### A citation on every line

Every finding and count opens its source page. No citation, no use.

2 —

##### HIPAA compliant AI with a signed BAA

A business associate agreement before any record is uploaded. Consumer chatbots without one are out.

3 —

##### SOC 2 and no training on your data

An independent security report and a written promise that client records do not train the model.

4 —

##### Low-confidence pages flagged

Faxed and handwritten pages marked for a person to read, not silently guessed.

5 —

##### An audit trail of AI use

A log of who uploaded, viewed and edited what, so you can answer questions about your own work product.

6 —

##### No opinions

A tool that proposes RFC limits is doing the physician's job. The output should be facts and flags.

For the wider question of AI accuracy, see [is AI accurate enough for court](https://medrecords.ai/guides/is-ai-accurate-enough-for-court/) and [HIPAA-compliant AI medical record review](https://medrecords.ai/guides/hipaa-compliant-ai-medical-record-review/).

If you remember one thing
Use AI to find, count and cite. The physician states the limits. SSA sets the RFC.

Chapter 12 Publisher

### What Medrecords AI does for MSS preparation, and what it does not

Medrecords AI is medical record review software. You upload the records; it drafts a [cited medical chronology](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/) of every source, with [a citation on every line](https://medrecords.ai/product/citations/), and tracks [work status and functional restrictions](https://medrecords.ai/product/work-capacity-functional-restriction-tracking/) 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](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/), such as a referral with no specialist note, routes faxed and [handwritten pages](https://medrecords.ai/product/handwritten-medical-record-extraction/) through [OCR](https://medrecords.ai/product/ocr/) with low-confidence pages marked for a person, and answers questions from the record with citations through [record Q&A](https://medrecords.ai/product/qa/). 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](https://medrecords.ai/security/) and [HIPAA](https://medrecords.ai/hipaa/) ). Self-Service bills 10 cents a deduplicated page, down to 5 cents at volume, duplicates free; Enterprise On-Prem is an annual license.

The offer

#### See the record summary before the doctor sees the form.

Book a demo on a disability file you are preparing, then run your first case free on us. Every line comes back cited to its source page. You review, you revise, you sign.

[Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) [See functional restriction tracking](https://medrecords.ai/product/work-capacity-functional-restriction-tracking/)
Scheduling only. No records move from a public page.

Chapter 13 Everyone

### Frequently asked questions

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](https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0424510006), 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.

Chapter 14 Everyone

### Sources and method

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](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1545) (RFC) and [20 CFR 416.945](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/416.945) (SSI); [404.1546](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1546) (who assesses RFC).
- [20 CFR 404.1520](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1520), the 5-step sequential evaluation, (a)(4) and (e).
- [20 CFR 404.1520c](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1520c) and [416.920c](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/416.920c), opinion evaluation for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017; [404.1527](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1527) for earlier claims.
- [20 CFR 404.1513](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1513) (categories of evidence, (a)(2) medical opinion, (b)(2) opinion forms) and [404.1520b(c)(3)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1520b) (issues reserved to the Commissioner).
- [20 CFR 404.1512(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/404.1512) (duty to submit all evidence) and [404.1502(a)(7) and (8)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/404.1502) (APRNs and PAs).
- [20 CFR 404.1567](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.1567), physical exertion requirements.
- [20 CFR 404.935](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.935) (5-day evidence rule) and [404.938](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-404.938) (75-day hearing notice).
- [SSR 96-8p](https://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/rulings/ssr/SSR96-08.html), Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims (1996), restated in [POMS DI 24510.006](https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0424510006) (effective February 12, 2025).
- [SSR 83-10](https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR83-10-di-02.html), definitions of occasionally, frequent, sedentary and light work.
- [POMS DI 24510.060](https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0424510060), Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment (Form SSA-4734-F4-SUP).
- [Rescission of SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p and 06-3p](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/27/2017-05958/rescission-of-social-security-rulings-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](https://medrecords.ai/guides/attending-physician-statement/), [how to get medical records](https://medrecords.ai/guides/how-to-get-medical-records-for-a-lawsuit/), [what is a medical chronology](https://medrecords.ai/guides/what-is-a-medical-chronology/), and [Social Security disability record review](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/social-security-disability/).

### More guides

- [**Medication administration record (MAR): what it contains and how to read one** — What a medication administration record (MAR) contains, the CMS timing and error rules, a worked example, a…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/medication-administration-record/)
- [**Non-fatal strangulation: documenting and reviewing the medical record when the neck shows little** — How non-fatal strangulation is documented and reviewed: symptoms, forensic nurse forms, CT angiography…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/non-fatal-strangulation-medical-records/)
- [**Nursing home change in condition: the records between the first sign and the first call** — Nursing home change in condition cases: the F580 notice rule, vitals and call logs, the transfer form, and a…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/nursing-home-change-in-condition/)
- [**Nursing home fall lawsuits: how to reconstruct a fall from the record** — The records that decide a nursing home fall lawsuit: F689 avoidability, Morse scores, care plan follow-through…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/nursing-home-fall-lawsuit-records/)
- [**Nursing home malnutrition and dehydration: the records that prove or defend a weight loss case** — The nursing home records behind a malnutrition or dehydration claim: F692, MDS Section K weight math, meal…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/nursing-home-malnutrition-dehydration/)
- [**Nursing home records: the MDS, the CMS-2567 and every record a case needs** — MDS nursing home assessments, care plans, CNA flowsheets, MAR and TAR, CMS-2567 survey reports and staffing…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/nursing-home-records-mds-cms-2567/)