How Social Security Decides Disability at Step Five: Understanding “The Grids”

The Five-Step Sequential Evaluation Process

SSA’s five-step process follows a consistent order:

1. Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA) – Are you working and earning above SSA’s monthly threshold? If so, your claim generally stops here.
2. Severity of Impairment – Are your medical conditions severe enough to significantly limit basic work functions?
3. Meeting or Equaling a Listing – Do your impairments meet or medically equal one of SSA’s listed conditions? If yes, disability is presumed.
4. Past Relevant Work (PRW) – Can you still perform your previous job as it was actually or generally done?
5. Other Work – If you can’t perform past work, can you adjust to other work that exists in substantial numbers across the national economy, given your age, education, and functional capacity?

At Step Five, when prior job duties are no longer an option, SSA looks beyond your work history. The agency evaluates whether you could realistically adjust to new types of employment based on your remaining abilities. That’s where the Medical-Vocational “Grids” become essential; they guide this complex decision using a structured matrix of medical and vocational data.

What Are the “Grids”?

The Medical-Vocational Guidelines, found in 20 C.F.R. §404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, are a series of detailed tables used by SSA adjudicators and judges to decide disability cases at Step Five.

Each grid table blends four core elements:

• Residual Functional Capacity (RFC): What level of work a person can still perform, sedentary, light, medium, or heavier.
• Age: How an individual’s age affects their ability to adapt to new types of work.
• Education: The extent of schooling or training completed, and whether that education allows direct entry into skilled employment.
• Work Experience: Whether previous jobs provided transferable skills that could apply to other occupations.

When these factors align precisely with one of the grid rules, the SSA can reach a directed finding of either “Disabled” or “Not Disabled.” But in many real-world cases, people don’t fit neatly into those categories. In those situations, the grids still serve as a framework. This guiding reference helps adjudicators evaluate how a combination of physical limits, age, and vocational factors interacts, especially when non-exertional limitations such as chronic pain, anxiety, or fatigue also affect a person’s ability to work.

Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)

When Social Security talks about Residual Functional Capacity, it’s describing the maximum level of work activity a person can perform consistently, even with medical limitations in play. RFC doesn’t focus on what’s impossible for someone; it focuses on what remains possible, day after day, on a sustained and predictable basis. 

SSA defines five exertional categories that help shape an individual’s RFC:

• Sedentary work – Mostly sitting; occasional walking or lifting very light items (up to 10 pounds).
• Light work – Requires more standing or walking; frequent lifting of small objects up to 10 pounds, occasionally 20.
• Medium work – Involves lifting 25 pounds frequently and up to 50 occasionally.
• Heavy work – Lifting 50 pounds frequently and up to 100 occasionally.
• Very Heavy work – Anything exceeding the heavy threshold, often found in physically demanding labor.

In disability evaluations, only Sedentary, Light, and Medium RFC levels appear within the Medical-Vocational “Grids.” If a claimant can perform heavy or very heavy work, the assumption generally leads toward a “not disabled” finding because such capability indicates broad physical capacity across many job types. 

RFC isn’t determined in isolation. SSA considers multiple forms of evidence: medical opinions from treating doctors, hospital or clinic records, imaging or diagnostic results, statements about daily routines, and even inconsistencies between reported symptoms and medical findings. Together, these help adjudicators understand not just what a person’s condition is, but how that condition translates into actual workplace limitations.

Age Categories Used by SSA

Age plays a subtle but powerful role in disability determinations. SSA divides claimants into defined age brackets that affect how vocational adaptability is viewed:

• 18–49: Younger individuals
• 50–54: Closely approaching advanced age
• 55 and older: Advanced age
• (There’s also a subcategory for 60 and older, “closely approaching retirement age.”)

As people age, learning new job skills, adjusting to unfamiliar environments, or retraining for physically lighter roles becomes increasingly difficult. The grids recognize this shift. In practice, an older claimant with limited education and no transferable skills is more likely to qualify for disability at a given RFC level than a younger individual with the same restrictions.

The reason is straightforward: vocational adjustment, the ability to adapt to other kinds of work, shrinks with age. The grid rules mirror this real-world limitation, ensuring fairness by accounting for the combined effects of aging and physical or cognitive decline.

Education Levels

Education shapes opportunity, and SSA weighs it accordingly. The agency classifies educational backgrounds into clear tiers:

• Illiterate or unable to communicate in English – Minimal reading, writing, or communication ability.
• Marginal education – Up to roughly sixth-grade level.
• Limited education – Seventh through eleventh grade.
• High school graduate or more – May or may not allow direct entry into skilled work, depending on how recently the education was obtained and how relevant it is to current occupations.

A person’s education influences how easily they can transition into new types of employment. Someone with advanced schooling or specialized training might adjust more readily, while limited literacy or outdated qualifications narrow potential job matches. SSA weighs this factor alongside age and RFC to decide whether a significant work adjustment remains realistic.

Work Experience and Transferable Skills

Work history offers another layer of insight into employability. SSA defines past relevant work (PRW) as employment that:

• Occurred within the last 15 years,
• Was performed long enough to learn, and
• It was substantial enough to count as gainful activity.

Jobs are grouped by skill level:

• Unskilled – Simple duties requiring little training; short adjustment periods.
• Semi-skilled – Tasks involving coordination, alertness, or machine operation; some training required.
• Skilled – Work that demands specific training, experience, judgment, or expertise.

Within this structure, transferable skills are particularly important. They refer to abilities gained in prior work that could carry over to other jobs without extensive retraining. For claimants aged 55 or older, SSA takes a stricter stance: those skills must transfer with very little adjustment in tools, processes, or work environments.

In other words, someone who spent decades in heavy labor or repetitive manual work may find few, if any, transferable skills applicable to lighter or more technical occupations. That limitation often strengthens their eligibility under the grids, especially when combined with advanced age and lower education levels.

When the Grids Direct a “Disabled” Decision

In some cases, Social Security doesn’t need to guess. When certain combinations of age, education, skill level, and residual functional capacity (RFC) line up precisely with one of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, the agency can issue what’s called a directed finding. That means the evidence matches a pre-established rule in the regulations, automatically leading to a conclusion of either “Disabled” or “Not Disabled.”

The chart below simplifies how these grid rules work in practice. It’s drawn from the official guidelines under 20 C.F.R. §404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, and reflects the most common combinations that can result in a favorable (disabled) finding.

Example: How the Grids Apply

The complete official grids can be found in 20 C.F.R. §404, Subpart P, Appendix 2.

Interpretation tip: The darker or shaded combinations, where the claimant is older, limited in education, and restricted to sedentary work, are typically where SSA finds an individual disabled. In these scenarios, limited vocational adaptability combined with reduced physical capacity leaves few realistic employment options in the national economy.

However, not every situation fits neatly into a box. Many applicants land somewhere between two categories, which leads to the next layer of analysis, how SSA applies the grids as guidance rather than strict direction.

When the Grids Are Used as a Framework

The Medical-Vocational Guidelines don’t always provide a direct answer. When a claimant’s circumstances don’t precisely align with a specific grid rule, SSA uses the grids as a framework for decision-making rather than a final verdict.

This approach often applies when non-exertional limitations, issues that don’t relate purely to strength, further reduce the range of available jobs. These might include chronic pain, anxiety, problems with concentration or memory, or the need for flexibility, such as alternating between sitting and standing.

In such cases, the SSA adjudicator considers the grids alongside vocational expert testimony, medical evidence, and functional assessments. The expert helps determine whether any jobs still exist in significant numbers that match the claimant’s residual capabilities.

If the expert testifies that the combination of limitations effectively eliminates most or all potential work, SSA can still find the claimant disabled, even if the strict grid criteria aren’t met. In other words, the grids remain the foundation, but human judgment and individualized evaluation complete the picture.

How Claimants Can Strengthen Their Grid-Based Case

Winning at Step Five often depends less on luck and more on preparation. The Medical-Vocational Grids only work when the evidence behind them is solid, complete, and consistent. Small gaps or vague details in the record can easily shift an RFC level upward, enough to change a potential “disabled” outcome into a “not disabled” one.

Claimants should focus on several key areas:

• Consistent medical records: Regular visits and updated treatment notes show persistence and credibility. Gaps in care or conflicting reports can make adjudicators question severity.
• Detailed functional limits: A medical source statement or functional capacity evaluation from a treating provider helps clarify what tasks can and can’t be done, walking, standing, lifting, sitting, or concentrating over time.
• Accurate background documentation: Education level, English proficiency, and complete job history must all be recorded correctly. Even small errors here can push someone into the wrong grid category.
• Evidence of symptom persistence: Records or third-party statements showing frequent flare-ups, excessive absences, or reduced productivity can strengthen claims by illustrating real-world impact.

In short, precise RFC findings and reliable vocational details often make or break a Step-Five decision. Strong documentation turns the grids from a theoretical chart into a clear roadmap for approval.

When the Grids Don’t Apply

The Medical-Vocational Guidelines don’t cover every situation. They were built mainly for physical, exertional impairments, those that limit lifting, standing, or movement. For purely mental, sensory, or non-exertional conditions, the grids can’t directly dictate the outcome.

Still, adjudicators may use the same framework to guide their reasoning. They look at how limitations affect the occupational base, the range of jobs available, and decide if that base has been significantly reduced.

In mixed cases, where both physical and mental restrictions exist, SSA evaluates the exertional (physical) limitations first under the grid. Once that baseline is established, the agency examines how the non-exertional factors, such as difficulty focusing, chronic pain, or social functioning issues, further shrink available job options. This layered review ensures that every limitation is properly accounted for before a final decision is made.

Summary and Next Steps

The grids exist to bring structure and fairness to complex disability evaluations. They help SSA maintain consistency across thousands of claims while ensuring that no single factor, like age or work history, outweighs the full picture. Yet despite their clarity on paper, these guidelines remain challenging in practice. Small differences in medical language or work descriptions can completely change how a case aligns with a grid rule.

Applicants should avoid assuming that their situation guarantees approval or that it’s hopeless. Each claim turns on precise evidence and careful presentation.

If you’re uncertain how your age, medical evidence, or job history fit into the SSA’s grid system, SSDI Benefits Group can help review your file, map your profile against the relevant rules, and strengthen the vocational and medical record supporting your claim.

No win, no fee.
Contact SSDI Benefits Group for a free assessment at +1 (844) 421-1939 EXT 1.