Apply step 5 of sequential evaluation only after determining the claimant:

• •

  is not performing substantial gainful activity (SGA);

• •

  has a severe impairment;

• •

  does not meet or equal a listed impairment;

• •

  cannot do any past relevant work (PRW) based on a function-by-function comparison of residual functional capacity (RFC) with the demands of PRW both as the claimant performed the job and as the occupation is generally performed in the national economy; and

• •

  does not meet one of the medical-vocational profiles found in DI 25010.001.

It is not necessary to follow the steps in order when the claimant:

• •

  meets the requirements for expedited step 4 of sequential evaluation as described in DI 25005.005; or

• •

  is not performing SGA, has a severe impairment(s), cannot do PRW, and the adjudicator determines it is more expeditious to allow the case on a medical-vocational basis as described in DI 24515.020 than it would be evaluate the claimant’s impairment(s) under the listings.

A rule directs a determination when:

• •

  the claimant can do substantially all of the range of work represented by the exertional requirements for Table No. 1, 2, or 3; and

• •

  the claimant’s vocational factors of age, education, and past work experience meet the criteria of a rule.

To determine if the claimant’s vocational factors meet the criteria of a rule, use the categories for:

1. a. 

   age found in DI 25015.005 and DI 25015.006,

2. b. 

   education found in DI 25015.010, and

3. c. 

   past work experience found in DI 25015.015.

When the claimant’s exertional RFC and vocational factors of age, education, and past work experience meet the criteria of a rule, the issues of work adjustment and existence of work in the national economy for the claimant are resolved.

If the rule directs a determination of:

• •

  not disabled, the rule supports our finding that the claimant can adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy; or

• •

  disabled, the rule supports our finding that the claimant is not capable of adjusting to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

EXAMPLE: A 55-year-old claimant with a high school education and unskilled past work experience has a light RFC and nonexertional limitations of occasional bilateral handling. The claimant meets the criteria of rule 202.04 considering the claimant’s exertional limitations only. The decision column for that rule says “disabled.” Use rule 202.04 to direct a determination of disability. Do not consider the additional impact occasional handling would have on the light occupational base.

When a claimant’s exertional RFC or vocational factors do not meet the criteria of a medical-vocational rule, use the medical-vocational guidelines as a framework for a determination.

When we use a medical-vocational rule as a framework, the rule provides guidance for the disability determination.

This means that using a rule as a framework does not always resolve the issue of whether a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy to which the claimant can adjust.

For instructions on how to address the issue of a significant number of jobs when using a rule as a framework, see DI 25025.030.