Opinion ID: 159179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Step Four Findings

Text: Dover next contends that the ALJ erred by failing to make required findings regarding the demands of his past relevant work and his ability to meet those demands given his RFC, citing Winfrey v. Chater , 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 1996), and Henrie v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. , 13 F.3d 359 (10th Cir. 1993). The claimant bears the burden at step four of proving he cannot return to his past relevant work, either as he performed it or as it is performed in the national economy. See Andrade v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 985 F.2d 1045, 1051 (10th Cir. 1993). At step four, the ALJ must perform a three-phase evaluation of a claimant’s physical and mental residual functional capacity, the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past relevant work, and “whether the claimant has the ability to meet the job demands found in phase two despite the mental and/or physical limitations found in phase one.” Winfrey , 92 F.3d at 1023. The ALJ must make specific findings at each step. See id . The record shows that the ALJ questioned Dover and the vocational expert (VE) about the demands of Dover’s past work. The ALJ obtained adequate factual information about Dover’s past work demands to determine the physical and mental demands of claimant’s past work. In his decision, the ALJ specifically cited the testimony of the VE concerning the demands of Dover’s past work. Although the ALJ’s findings as to the requirements of Dover’s -6- former job and how they mesh with his impairments are brief, we find that the ALJ adequately considered Dover’s RFC, the physical and mental demands of his past work, and whether he has the ability to meet those job demands despite his RFC limitations. See Winfrey , 92 F.3d at 1022. The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court John C. Porfilio