20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529 requires symptoms, including pain, to be evaluated in relation to a medically determinable impairment, and pain alone cannot establish disability unless medical signs or findings show a condition reasonably expected to produce it.

Jean M. Gallagher on Behalf of Eleanor Gallagher v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1983-01-03

The effects of all symptoms, including severe and prolonged pain, must be evaluated on the basis of a medically determinable impairment which can be shown to be the cause of the symptom. We will never find that you are disabled based on your symptoms, including pain, unless medical signs or findings show that there is a medical condition that could be reasonably expected to produce those symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires the adjudicator to sufficiently consider a claimant's evidence of pain when evaluating disability.

Roger WAITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appell · filed 1987-06-01

First, the ALT specifically addressed Waite's complaints of pain in the discussion section of his order, noting that Waite complained of periodic headaches and pain in his left arm. This reveals that the ALT sufficiently considered the evidence of pain, as the statute requires him to do. Stephens v. Heckler, 766 F.2d 284, 287 (7th Cir.1985).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of pain and other symptoms when medical evidence shows an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce them.

Chrupcala v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1987-09-28

No challenges have been leveled against the techniques by which Doctors Ferretti and Bevan arrived at their respective impressions and diagnoses. The medical conditions from which appellant suffers could reasonably be expected to produce the pain that appellant alleges he has. The reports of Dr. Kubiak and Dr. M. Jaffari that appellant suffered from no serious orthopedic impairments are not inconsistent with this. Appellant’s testimony regarding his pain was uncontradicted. It is therefore apparent that the Appeals Council’s finding— that appellant’s testimony regarding pain was not supported by the evidence and therefore not credible — was not based on substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires medical signs or findings showing a condition reasonably expected to produce the alleged pain; a proven physical cause is not required, and subjective pain symptoms remain relevant.

Johnson v. Heckler · filed 1985-05-06

However, the regulations require that there be medical signs or findings showing that there is a medical condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Thus, the AU can disregard a plaintiff’s self-serving allegations of pain if they are unsupported by objective evidence. ... The requirement of objective evidence and medically acceptable clinical techniques is not, however, a requirement for a proven physical etiology of pain. To the contrary, a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms of pain are a significant factor to be weighed in determining whether a disability, as defined in the Act, exists.

Section 404.1529 requires medical signs or findings of a condition reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms before disability can be based on symptoms such as pain.

Donald HAMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis W. BOWEN, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1986-04-02

We will never find that you are disabled based on your symptoms, including pain, unless medical signs or findings show that there is a medical condition that could be reasonably expected to produce those symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant to provide medical signs or findings showing a medical condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms.

Dixon v. Bowen · filed 1988-08-30

Mrs. Dixon is required, under the Secretary’s regulations to provide evidence of “medical signs or findings ... that there is a medical condition that could be reasonably expected to produce those symptoms.” 20 CFR § 404.1529 (1987), Sparks v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir.1986).

Section 404.1529 does not permit subjective allegations of disabling symptoms, including pain, alone to establish disability; objective medical evidence of an underlying medical condition is required.

Jackie D. Price v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1989-12-12

This court has previously held that subjective complaints of pain may support a claim for disability. Duncan v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 852 (6th Cir.1986). However, subjective allegations of disabling symptoms, including pain, cannot alone support a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. To support a claim for disability there must be objective medical evidence in the record of an underlying medical condition. Duncan, 801 F.2d at 853. If this requirement is met, the court must also determine either that the objective medical evidence confirms the severity of the alleged disabling pain arising from the condition, or that the objectively established medical condition is of such a severity that it can reasonably be expected to produce disabling pain. Id.

Section 404.1529 requires objective evidence of an underlying medical condition and, beyond subjective symptoms alone, either confirmation of the alleged pain's severity or a condition reasonably expected to produce disabling pain.

Ronald M. TYRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1990-02-23

However, subjective allegations of disabling symptoms, including pain, cannot alone support a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1989). To support a claim for disability there must be objective medical evidence in the record of an underlying medical condition. ... If this requirement is met, the court must also determine either that the objective medical evidence confirms the severity of the alleged disabling pain arising from the condition, or that the objectively established medical condition is of such a severity that it can reasonably be expected to produce disabling pain.

Section 404.1529 can require the Secretary to credit a claimant’s pain testimony when a medically established condition could reasonably produce pain, medical evidence supports the testimony, and no other credibility concerns undermine it.

Martin v. Sullivan · filed 1990-10-23

Similarly, when a physician finds that there is a medical condition that could be reasonably expected to produce pain, the Secretary may be bound to accept the claimant’s testimony if the testimony is supported by medical evidence and absent other signs of lack of credibility. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929.

Section 404.1529 requires medical evidence of an impairment reasonably expected to produce the symptoms, but once that threshold is met, the adjudicator must consider symptom severity and may not reject it solely for lack of objective corroboration.

Bunnell v. Sullivan and Rice v. Sullivan · filed 1991-10-01

These regulations require a claimant to present medical findings establishing an impairment. Once the claimant satisfies this prerequisite, the adjudicator must then consider the claimant's alleged severity of pain. Sections 404.1529 and 416.929 read in full: ... The effects of all symptoms, including severe and prolonged pain, must be evaluated on the basis of a medically determinable impairment which can be shown to be the cause of the symptom. We will never find that you are disabled based on your symptoms, including pain, unless medical signs or findings show that there is a medical condition that could be reasonably expected to produce these symptoms. ... Accordingly, under the Cotton-Varney-Gamer precedent, once the claimant produces objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment, an adjudicator may not reject a claimant's subjective complaints based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disability due to pain to first show a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain.

Carbone v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-04-14

Any claimant alleging disability due to pain has the threshold burden of establishing a clinically determinable medical impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Avery v. Secretary of HHS, 797 F.2d 19, 21 (1st Cir 1986).

Section 404.1529(a) requires that pain or other symptom statements alone cannot establish disability; medical signs and laboratory findings must show an impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms, which must be considered with all other evidence in determining disability.

Shaw v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-10-29(a)

Subjective complaints of pain must be substantiated by objective medical evidence showing the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged by the claimant, and the evidence of pain must be such that, either singly or in combination with other evidence, it leads to the conclusion that the claimant is disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) ("statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show that you have a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and which, when considered with all of the other evidence ... would lead to a conclusion that you are disabled"). Cf. Duncan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 801 F.2d 847 (6th Cir.1986). Under these standards, and viewing the record as a whole, we are not prepared to say that the Secretary was required to find that Ms. Shaw's pain and other problems were disabling.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical signs or findings showing a medically determinable condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimed symptoms, including pain, before disability can be found based on those symptoms.

Fowler v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-04-14

Health and Human Services regulations state: "We will never find that you are disabled based on your symptoms, including pain, unless medical signs or findings show that there is a medical condition that could reasonably be expected to produce those symptoms." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Under this standard, the Seventh Circuit requires that objective medical signs and findings show a condition that would reasonably be expected to produce the degree of pain alleged. See, e.g., Clark v. Sullivan, 891 F.2d 175, 177 (7th Cir.1989). ... The court finds that the ALJ had substantial evidence to conclude that Fowler's pain was not of disabling severity, so as to preclude him from returning to his prior work.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, in light of objective medical evidence and testimony about resulting functional limitations.

Binion v. Shalala · filed 1994-01-03

The ALJ is required to consider all of the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, in light of objective medical evidence. The ALJ must also consider testimony by the claimant and other witnesses familiar with her daily activities to determine how any restrictions due to pain affect the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to credit a medically determinable impairment while disbelieving allegations of pain beyond the limitations supported by medical evidence.

Faford v. Shalala · filed 1994-06-24

Faford maintains that the ALJ’s analysis was inconsistent with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 because he failed to search for a medically determinable impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain. The ALJ did find, however, that Fa-ford suffers from probable, degenerative disc disease. The ALJ also incorporated the conclusions of Dr. Spear by placing a restriction against excessive bending, twisting or stooping on Faford’s work capability. The ALJ merely found not credible Faford’s complaints of pain beyond that which was medically verifiable.

Section 404.1529 is part of the authoritative regulatory standard for evaluating pain in disability determinations and controls post-effective-date SSDI determinations.

Nannie MICKLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1994-07-18

On November 14, 1991, the Secretary, acting pursuant to the rulemaking authority delegated by Congress in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1302, substantially revised the regulations governing the evaluation of pain in SSDI and SSI disability determinations. See 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1529, 416.929 (1993). These regulations provide the authoritative standard for the evaluation of pain in disability determinations, see Pope v. Shalala, 998 F.2d 473, 485-86 (7th Cir.1993), and control all determinations made since their effective date, including the instant case.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider daily activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating and aggravating factors, treatment or medication effectiveness, and other evidence of functional limitations when evaluating a claimant's pain.

Murillo v. Shalala · filed 1995-05-04(c)(3)

The ALJ must inguire about the claimant's daily activities; the location, duration, freguency, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the characteristics and effectiveness of any medication, treatments, or other measures the claimant is or has taken to relieve pain; and any other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations due to pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Avery, 797 F.2d at 23. ... In partially discounting Murillo's subjective pain complaints, the ALJ considered all of the relevant information required by Avery and the applicable pain regulations.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ, once a medically determinable impairment that could cause the alleged pain is established but the pain's intensity or persistence is not substantiated by medical records, to weigh all relevant evidence and factors in evaluating the impairment's effect on the claimant's ability to work.

Herron v. Shalala · filed 1994-03-21

Once the presence of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment is established that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged, but the intensity or persistence of the pain is unsubstantiated by the medical record, the ALJ is obliged to examine and weigh all the evidence including observations by treating and examining physicians, third-party testimony, the claimant’s testimony and daily activities, functional restrictions, pain medication taken, and aggravating or precipitating factors to evaluate how much the claimant’s impairment affects his ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1993); Pope, 998 F.2d at 482, 485; see also Social Security Ruling 88-13, Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Pain and Other Symptoms.

Once a medically determinable impairment is established, the effects of pain must be considered at every step of the sequential disability evaluation, using medical history and objective evidence to assess the intensity and persistence of the pain.

McCarthy v. HHS · filed 1995-08-09(d)

Once a medically determinable impairment is documented, the effects of pain must be considered at each step of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d). A claimant's medical history and the objective medical evidence are considered reliable indicators from which the ALJ may draw reasonable conclusions regarding the intensity and persistence of the claimant's pain. Avery, 797 F.2d at 23; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). However, situations exist in which the reported symptoms of pain suggest greater functional restrictions than can be demonstrated by the medical evidence alone. Id.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective pain: establish a medically determinable impairment capable of producing the alleged pain, then evaluate the pain's intensity and persistence alongside the medical evidence and its effect on work capacity.

Salazar v. Chater · filed 1995-10-06

The Social Security regulations provide for a two-step process to be used in evaluating whether subjective complaints of pain contribute to a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. For pain to contribute to a finding of disability, the claimant must first establish, by medical signs and laboratory findings, the presence of a medically determinable physical impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged. Once such an impairment is established, allegations about the intensity and persistence of pain must be considered in addition to the medical signs and laboratory findings in evaluating the impairment and the extent to which it affects the claimant's capacity for work. Id.; see also Pope v. Shalala, 998 F.2d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 1993).

Section 404.1529 requires considering all evidence about the intensity, persistence, and functional effects of pain or other symptoms, in addition to medical signs and laboratory findings, once an impairment that could produce the symptoms is established.

Josephine A. FOOTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1995-11-03

A claimant may establish that her pain is disabling through objective medical evidence that an underlying medical condition exists that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 provides that once such an impairment is established, all evidence about the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms must be considered in addition to the medical signs and laboratory findings in deciding the issue of disability.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant's pain and other symptoms at every step, including factors such as daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, treatment, and functional limitations.

Reil v. HHS · filed 1996-03-11(d), (c)(3), (c)(4)

Once a medically determinable impairment is documented, the effects of pain must be considered at each step of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d). ... The ALJ is required to consider the following seven factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency and intensity of pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms, past or present; (5) treatment, other than medication, received for relief of pain or other symptoms, past or present; (6) any measures used, past or present, to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Avery, 797 F.2d at 2 3 , 2 8 . If the claimant's complaints of pain are found to be credible under these criteria, the pain will be determined to diminish the claimant's capacity to work in Steps 4 and 5 of the sequential analysis. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain when a medically determinable impairment can reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain.

Ranlet v. HHS · filed 1996-03-19

The ALJ is reguired to consider the subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms by a claimant who presents a "clinically determinable medical impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); Avery v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 797 F.2d 19, 21 (1st Cir. 1986); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of an impairment that could produce the alleged pain, followed by evaluation of pain intensity and functional limitations consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Wilson v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-09-27(b), (c)(4)

A two-step process is used to determine whether a claimant is disabled by pain. First, objective medical evidence must show the existence of a medical impairment that reasonably could be expected to produce the pain alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b) (1996); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 594 (4th Cir.1996). If such an impairment is established, then the intensity and persistence of the pain and the extent to which it affects a claimant's ability to work must be evaluated. Id. at 595. When a claimant proves the existence of a medical condition that could cause pain, "the claimant's subjective complaints of pain must be considered by the Secretary, and these complaints may not be rejected merely because the severity of pain cannot be proved by objective medical evidence." Mickles v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 918, 919 (4th Cir.1994). Objective medical evidence of pain should be gathered and considered, but the absence of such evidence is not determinative. Hyatt v. Sullivan, 899 F.2d 329, 337 (4th Cir.1990). A claimant's symptoms, including pain, are considered to diminish his capacity to work to the extent that alleged functional limitations are reasonably consistent with objective medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4) (1996).

Section 404.1529(a) provides that pain or other symptoms alone do not establish disability; the claimant must have a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to produce them, and adjudicators consider them with all available evidence.

Melanson v. SSA · filed 1996-10-21(a)

statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled; there must be medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and which, when considered with all of the other evidence (including statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms which may reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings), would lead to a conclusion that you are disabled. In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, including pain, we will consider all of the available evidence, including your medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings and statements about how your symptoms affect you.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the adjudicator, when a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, to evaluate their intensity and persistence and consider all available evidence, including objective medical evidence and the claimant’s statements.

Corchado v. Shalala · filed 1996-12-20(c)

When medical signs or laboratory findings indicate that the claimant has “medically determinable impairments) that could reasonably be expected to produce [his] symptoms, such as pain, [the adjudicator] must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the] symptoms” in order to determine how they limit the claimant’s ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). In making this evaluation, the adjudicator must consider all of the available evidence, including the objective medical evidence and the statements of the claimant.

Section 404.1529(c) and (d) require consideration of relevant factors when evaluating the severity of a claimant's subjective pain complaints.

Maynard v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1997-03-20(c) and (d)

The ALJ adequately addressed the relevant factors set forth in the applicable regulations and rulings before concluding that Maynard's condition was not of such severity that it had produced disabling pain.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the adjudicator to consider a claimant’s pain and other symptoms with the medical and other evidence; lack of objective findings alone cannot justify rejecting disabling-pain allegations, though an adverse credibility finding must state specific reasons.

Harrison v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1995-10-19(a)

Plaintiff has established that she has a medically determinable impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce severe pain. The ALJ recognized that “the claimant has the following severe impairments based upon the medical evidence: (1) low back pain; (2) osteoarthritis; (3) lumbar radiculopathy; (4) scoliosis of the thoracic spine; and (5) lumbar lordosis.” Tr. 27. Thus, if the ALJ rejected plaintiffs allegations of disabling pain due to an absence of objective clinical findings establishing a cause for the pain, he committed reversible error. If, on the other hand, the ALJ found that plaintiffs testimony lacked credibility, he did not err in rejecting it, but it was error not to state with specificity the reasons for the rejection.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step pain evaluation: establish a medically determinable impairment capable of producing the alleged pain, then consider the claimant’s subjective pain complaints together with the medical evidence when determining work capacity.

Travis RIPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1995-10-30

To prove disability resulting from pain, an individual must establish a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain. ... Once a medical impairment is established, the subjective complaints of pain must be considered along with the medical evidence in determining the individual’s work capacity.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disabling pain to show a medically determinable impairment capable of producing it, after which the ALJ must consider the subjective complaints together with medical evidence when determining the claimant’s working ability.

White v. Callahan · filed 1997-09-15

To prove a pain-induced disability, a claimant must demonstrate a “medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain.” ... Once the claimant establishes such an impairment, the ALJ must consider the subjective complaints of pain, along with the medical evidence in determining the individual’s working ability. ... The ALJ articulated in his opinion specific reasons for refusing to grant credence to White’s subjective complaints of pain: ... The Administrative Law Judge has considered the location, intensity, duration and frequency of the subjective complaints, the amount of medication that the claimant takes, the amount of medical treatment that she has, treatment other than medication, her daily activities, and the absence of side effects from medication which the claimant specifically acknowledged. After a complete and thorough evaluation, it is found that the claimant’s subjective complaints are not credible. ... With these specific factual findings, along with the vocational expert’s testimony that White could return to her past relevant work, we hold that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision to deny White her claim for benefits.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to weigh a claimant's pain testimony against all other relevant evidence, including medical history and laboratory findings, when determining the pain's intensity and persistence.

Bell v. V. Kenneth S. Apfel , Commissioner of the Social Security and Administration · filed 1997-11-25(a)

However, although an ALJ may not reject pain testimony without clear and convincing reasons, an ALJ must weigh pain testimony against all other relevant evidence, including medical history and laboratory findings, to determine the pain's intensity and persistence. 20 CFR § 404.1529(a) (1997). ... In this case, the ALJ did not totally reject Bell's pain testimony: He accepted that Bell was in pain to some degree and then concluded, on the basis of all the relevant evidence, that her pain was not so great as to keep her from working. Specifically, the ALJ noted the generally normal findings in the medical reports, which we have already summarized above. Therefore, we conclude that the ALJ properly considered the effect of Bell's pain on her ability to perform her past work.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to reject excess-pain testimony only after considering all relevant factors and giving specific, clear, and convincing reasons.

Lindsoe v. John J. Callahan , Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1997-12-22

As here, an ALJ is permitted to reject excess pain testimony after consideration of all relevant factors if she provides "specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so." See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1995); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281; Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345-46 (9th Cir.1991).

Section 404.1529 requires the effects of pain to be considered at each step of the sequential evaluation and provides that credible pain complaints diminish a claimant's capacity to work.

Ranlet v. SSA · filed 1998-02-20(d), (c)(4)

Once a medically determinable impairment is documented, the effects of pain must be considered at each step of the sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d) (1997). ... If the complaints of pain are found to be credible under the criteria, the pain will be determined to diminish the claimant's capacity to work. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 423(d) (West Supp. 1997); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (1997).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating pain and other subjective symptoms to consider the relevant factors, including medication effects and dosage, pain-relief measures, and the duration, frequency, and intensity of pain, and to support the credibility determination with specific record findings.

Henk v. SSA · filed 1998-03-06(c)(3)

While the ALJ's credibility determination is entitled to deference, it must be supported by specific factual findings which are, in turn, supported by the record. Here, however, the ALJ's credibility determination is not adeguately grounded in the record insofar as it appears that the ALJ failed to give sufficient consideration to the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) and Avery (e.g., effectiveness, side effects, and dosage of pain medications; any measures used to relieve pain; duration, freguency, and intensity of pain; etc.).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to analyze the relevant pain-evaluation factors with specific findings and evidence, rather than merely reciting the factors.

Smith v. Chater · filed 1998-03-11

More serious is the ALJ’s failure to make specific analytical findings concerning a number of factors which find support in the record. Although he included a rote recitation of some of the criteria stated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and § 416.929, see Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 36, he did not follow this recital with any specific analysis, and did not indicate what specific evidence he considered relating to these factors to reach his conclusion.

Section 404.1529(a) allows an ALJ to decline to credit pain allegations that are inconsistent with medical findings about the claimant's condition.

Baird v. SSA · filed 1998-03-24(a)

An ALJ need not give credence to the claimant's allegations of pain, however, if they are inconsistent with the medical findings regarding her condition. See Dupuis v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 869 F .2d 622, 623 (1st Cir. 1989); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (c)(4); Social Security Ruling 88-13.

Section 404.1529 requires objective evidence of a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to produce the claimant’s actual alleged pain before the adjudicator evaluates the pain’s intensity, persistence, and functional effects using all available evidence.

Ronda S. CRAIG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1996-02-23(b), (c)(1)-(4)

The regulation thus requires at the threshold a showing by objective evidence of the existence of a medical impairment “which could reasonably be expected to produce” the actual pain, in the amount and degree, alleged by the claimant.

Section 404.1529 requires an in-depth evaluation of pain and other symptoms using the listed factors, rather than merely dismissing the claimant's allegations as not credible.

Geracitano v. Callahan · filed 1997-10-01

The second decision stated that the ALJ evaluated plaintiffs complaints of pain pursuant to Social Security Rule 88-13, but not pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... The regulatory section, entitled “How we evaluate symptoms, including pain,” stated in part: ... Factors relevant to your symptoms, such as pain, which we will consider include: ... (i) Your daily activities; ... (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of your pain or other symptoms; ... (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; ... (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms; ... (v) Treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms; ... (vi) Any measures you use or have used to reheve your pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and ... (vii) Other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. ... The ALJ’s second decision demonstrates that he never undertook this type of in-depth analysis with regard to plaintiffs symptoms. ... Despite the regulatory scheme and the Appeals Council’s direction, he merely dismissed the allegations of pain by finding that plaintiff was not credible. ... Upon remand, an evaluation of plaintiffs symptoms can and should be fully addressed.

Section 404.1529 provides that statements about pain or other symptoms alone do not establish disability and directs the Commissioner to consider other evidence and factors when objective medical evidence does not show disabling severity.

Clarence WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1997-10-15(a), (c)(3)

An individual’s statements as to “pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [he is] disabled....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The regulations indicate that if disabling severity cannot be shown by objective medical evidence alone, the Commissioner will also consider other factors, such as daily activities and the type and dosage of medication taken.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity and persistence against the medical record and their effect on work capacity.

Lord v. SSA · filed 1998-06-14(b)

In evaluating Lord's complaints of pain, the ALJ followed the procedure set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1997). Pursuant to that procedure, the ALJ first found that Lord suffers from a medically determinable impairment -- degenerative disc disease -- that could reasonably be expected to cause pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). The ALJ then evaluated the extent to which Lord's pain affects his capacity to work by inguiring, with reference to the medical record, into the intensity and persistence of that pain. See id. He concluded that Lord's back and leg pain were not so severe as to preclude his performance of light and sedentary work.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain throughout the disability-evaluation process.

Barnett v. Apfel · filed 1998-07-09(a)

Throughout the evaluation process, the ALJ must consider subjective complaints of pain. § 404.1529(a), (d).

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain throughout the disability-evaluation process, while permitting the ALJ to assess their credibility.

Marks v. Apfel · filed 1998-07-09(a)

Throughout the evaluation process, the ALJ must consider subjective complaints of pain. § 404.1529(a), (d). The ALJ, though, is “not obliged to accept without question the credibility of such subjective evidence.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating pain to consider its characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, other treatment, functional restrictions, and daily activities.

DiVirgilio v. Apfel · filed 1998-09-24

The court has also considered the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiffs pain. In accord with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, the ALJ had to consider (1) the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of any pain; (2) precipitating and aggravating factors, for example, movement, activity and environmental conditions; (3) the type, dosage, effectiveness and adverse side-effects of any pain medication; (4) any treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain; (5) functional restrictions; and (6) the Plaintiffs daily activities.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate all symptoms, including pain, using objective medical evidence and other evidence, and to consider relevant factors such as daily activities, medication, treatment, and functional limitations.

Molina v. Apfel · filed 1999-03-16(a), (c)

Contrary to plaintiffs suggestions, the ALJ adopted and applied the multi-factor analysis of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 to evaluate plaintiffs symptoms including his complaints of pain. (R. 13-15). The ALJ considered plaintiffs subjective complaints in the Disability Report, as well as his accounts of his daily activities, the medications he was taking for pain, his testimony at the hearing concerning his pain, and his subjective exertional limitations.

Section 404.1529(b) requires consideration of available objective medical evidence, and § 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of specified additional factors when symptoms indicate greater limitations than objective evidence alone shows.

Echevarria v. Apfel · filed 1999-05-11(b), (c)(3)

When a medically determinable impairment exists that reasonably could be expected to produce the pain alleged, objective medical evidence must be considered in determining whether a disability exists whenever such evidence is available. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b). If symptoms suggest a greater impairment than can be shown by objective evidence alone, consideration also is to be given to other factors, including (1) the person’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse side effects of medication that the person has taken to alleviate the symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain or other symptoms; and (6) any measures which the person uses or has used to relieve the pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). An administrative law judge may properly reject claims of severe, disabling pain after weighing the objective medical evidence in the record, the claimant’s demeanor, and other indicia of credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the decisionmaker to evaluate pain and other symptom complaints by considering daily activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication and other treatment, functional restrictions, and any other relevant factors.

Dunn v. SSA · filed 1999-12-10(c)(3)

Although I render no opinion on the merits of Dunn's other claims on appeal, on remand the ALJ should thoroughly evaluate the credibility of Dunn's pain complaints in light of all the evidence that relates to any of the following factors: (1) Dunn's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, freguency, and intensity of Dunn's pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any pain medications Dunn has taken; (5) any non-medication forms of treatment for pain relief that Dunn has received; (6) any functional restrictions; and (7) any other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) (3), 416.929(c)(3) (1999); Avery v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 797 F.2d 19, 29 (1st Cir. 1986) .

After a claimant shows a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, the ALJ evaluates their intensity and persistence to determine how they limit the claimant's capacity for work.

Poland v. SSA · filed 1999-12-22(c)(1)

Second, if this showing is made, the ALJ evaluates "the intensity and persistence of [the claimant's] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [the claimant's] symptoms limit [his or her] capacity for work." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when evaluating pain and prohibits rejecting subjective pain complaints solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Lewis v. Apfel · filed 1999-04-22(c)(4) (c)(2)

This finding must be based upon consideration of the following factors: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications that the claimant is taking or has taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatments, other than medication, that the claimant is receiving or has received for relief from pain; (6) any other measures that the claimant uses or has used to relieve the pain; and (7) any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); Social Security Ruling 96-7p at 34485. ... Furthermore, a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain may not be rejected solely because the available objective evidence does not substantiate the complaints. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); Social Security Ruling 96-7p at 34487.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant's pain allegations to be evaluated alongside medical findings after a medically determinable impairment capable of producing the alleged pain is established.

Hodes v. Apfel · filed 1999-09-01

The regulations provide the process for evaluating whether subjective complaints of pain should contribute to a finding of disability' — the claimant must establish a medically-determined physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or the symptoms alleged. Once such an impairment is established, allegations about the intensity, persistence, and functional effects of pain or other symptoms must be considered in addition to the medical findings in evaluating the impairment and the extent to which it may affect the claimant’s capacity for work.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating pain and other symptoms to consider factors beyond objective medical evidence, and to explain those factors sufficiently for meaningful review when the objective evidence is sparse.

Machos v. SSA · filed 2000-06-15(c)(3)

Where the objective medical evidence of the extent of claimant's pain is sparse, an ALJ must provide thorough written discussion of the Avery factors in support of his or her credibility determination, otherwise meaningful review is simply not possible. Here, such a discussion is lacking and, based upon the record before it, the court cannot conclude that the ALJ's credibility determination was based upon substantial evidence. Because that credibility determination was a substantial factor in the ALJ's conclusion that claimant can perform a range of light work, a remand to the ALJ for further discussion of the factors outlined in Avery and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 is necessary.

Section 404.1529(a) requires medical signs and laboratory findings showing an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain or symptoms, and requires consideration of all available evidence in evaluating their intensity, persistence, and work-related effects.

Clifford v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2000-09-14(a)

However, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s subjective complaint of pain if supported by medical signs and findings. ... The Social Security regulations provide that "there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show that [the claimant] ha[s] a médical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and which, when considered with all of the other evidence (including statements about the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms which may reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings), would lead to a conclusion that [the claimant] is disabled. In evaluating the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, we will consider all of the available evidence, including [the claimant’s] medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings and statements about how [the claimant's] symptoms affect [the claimant].... We will then determine the extent to which [the claimant’s] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence to decide how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [the claimant’s] ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars an ALJ from rejecting a claimant's symptom statements solely for lack of supporting medical evidence, but permits considering that lack of evidence, including clinical signs and laboratory findings, when evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and work-related effects.

Clint Smith v. Kenneth Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2000-11-03(c)(2)

It is true that, under the regulatory scheme, an ALJ may not reject a claimant's statements concerning the intensity or persistence of his symptoms solely because they are not fully supported by medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. sec. 404.1529(c)(2); see also Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309, 314 (7th Cir. 1995). However, it is also true that an ALJ may consider the lack of medical evidence as probative of the claimant's credibility. See Powers, 207 F.3d at 435 ("The discrepancy between the degree of pain attested to by the witness and that suggested by the medical evidence is probative that the witness may be exaggerating her condition."). Clinical signs and laboratory findings are useful indicators of disability and can assist the ALJ in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of the claimant's symptoms and the effect those symptoms may have on the claimant's ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. sec. 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain before evaluating the pain's severity and its effect on the claimant's ability to work.

Brown v. SSA · filed 2000-12-22(a)

When a claimant alleges disability due to pain, in assessing the claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ must first determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is reasonably likely to produce the pain claimed.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ, when objective medical evidence does not support the alleged intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of pain, to consider specified additional factors, including daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, other relief measures, and other functional limitations.

Hannaford v. SSA · filed 2001-01-15(c)(4)

Once it is determined, as it was here, that a claimant has an impairment (or impairments) that are capable of causing pain, the ALJ must "evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the [pain] to determine the extent to which the [pain] limit[s] the individual's ability to do basic work activities." Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-7p (July 2, 1996) . If the alleged intensity, persistence, and limiting effect of the pain are not supported by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must look beyond the objective medical evidence and consider the following factors: ... (7) any other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); SSR 96-7p; Avery v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 797 F.2d 19, 28 (1st Cir. 1986).

Section 404.1529(a) makes a claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms insufficient by themselves to establish disability, while subsections (c)(1) and (c)(3) require the agency to evaluate symptom intensity and persistence and consider specified factors once a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the symptoms.

Thompson v. Apfel · filed 2001-03-08(a), (c)(1), (c)(3)

A claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms are insufficient in themselves to establish disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (2000). ... When the medical evidence demonstrates that a claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, the Secretary must evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms in order to determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) (2000). In making his determination, the Secretary is to consider daily activities; location, duration, frequency and intensity of symptoms; precipitating or aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications; treatment other than medications received for relief; other measures used to relieve symptoms; and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (2000). ... While the ALJ took note of the factors to be considered listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and referred to claimant’s testimony as to each, he made no attempt to evaluate plaintiffs subjective claims as to pain and other symptoms in light of the medical evidence. Nor did he articulate any reasons to support his determination that plaintiffs statements were not credible. ... It is the opinion of the undersigned that the ALJ’s determination that plaintiffs testimony, absent sufficient support therefor, is not supported by substantial evidence. It is the opinion of the undersigned that this matter be remanded to the ALJ for an articulation of his reasons for findings made concerning plaintiffs credibility.

Once an impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant's symptoms, the adjudicator must consider those symptoms and evaluate their intensity and persistence.

David v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services, 00-1046 (2001) · filed 2001-05-10(b)

Since the plaintiff has a "medically determinable impairment," the next step in this sequential evaluation process is that the adjudicator (DHS) "must consider that the individual has an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual's symptoms associated with CFS., as required in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (b) and 416.929(b), and proceed to evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms. Thus, if an adjudicator concludes that an individual has a a medically determinable impairment, and the individual alleges . . . symptoms consistent with CFS, these symptoms must be considered in deciding whether the individual's impairment is `severe.'" (Emphasis added.)

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider all symptoms, including pain, and assess whether their intensity, frequency, and duration are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence.

Mastro v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 2001-07-05

An ALJ’s evaluation of a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain must "consider all . . . symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant's symptoms, including pain, for consistency with objective medical and other record evidence, but does not require precise medical corroboration.

Poland v. SSA · filed 2001-08-02(a)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant's subjective complaints of pain, the ALJ must consider whether these complaints are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). While a claimant's complaints of pain must be consistent with the medical evidence to be credited, they need not be precisely corroborated with such evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider daily activities, medications, and other treatment or measures when objective medical evidence does not fully support subjective symptom complaints.

Tappan v. Halter · filed 2001-05-31(c)(3)

Because the ALJ determined that the objective medical evidence did not fully support plaintiffs subjective pain complaints, the ALJ was required to consider other factors in evaluating those complaints such as her daily activities, medications taken, and other treatment or measures taken to relieve symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant's symptom allegations, first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce them, and, if so, evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using objective and other evidence.

Ramos v. SSA · filed 2002-04-30(a), (b), (c)

An ALJ is required to consider a claimant's allegations about his own impairments, including pain, in making a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ must first determine whether the claimant has a "medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant's symptoms, such as pain." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). A claimant's "complaints of pain need not be precisely corroborated by objective findings, but they must be consistent with medical findings." Dupuis v. Sec'v of Health & Human Servs., 869 F.2d 622, 623 (1st Cir. 1989). If so, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms, considering the claimant's objective medical evidence along with other evidence, to determine whether the symptoms limit the claimant's capacity for work. See § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(a) directs the adjudicator to determine how alleged pain-related functional limitations and restrictions affect ability to work by assessing their consistency with medical signs, laboratory findings, and other evidence.

D'Aurelio v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-06-06(a)

This conclusion is properly within the sound discretion of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (1991) (“We will then determine the extent to which your alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence to decide how your symptoms affect your ability to work.”).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective pain complaints: determine whether the pain could reasonably result from a medically determinable impairment, then assess its intensity, persistence, and effects on ability to work using all available relevant evidence.

Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-06-12(b), (c)(1), (c)

First, when considering a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, an ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis. First, an ALJ must determine if the alleged disabling pain could reasonably result from the medically determinable impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Second, an ALJ must consider the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s disabling pain, and the extent to which it affects his ability to work. 20 C.F.F. § 404.1529(c)(1). In doing so, an ALJ must consider all of the available evidence including any factors relevant to the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). In this case, while the ALJ made no specific finding concerning the first prong of the “pain analysis,” the ALJ’s decision concerning the second prong is sufficient to support the ALJ’s final decision.

Section 404.1529 requires medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce alleged pain and requires evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the relevant evidence.

Steward v. Barnhart · filed 2002-08-30(a), (b), (c)

A claimant’s statements about his pain will not be sufficient, standing alone; there must be medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b); ... If, as the plaintiff contends, the further requirements of SSR 96-7p are triggered in this case, the administrative law judge complied with those requirements, which incorporate 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c). SSR 96-7p at 135. He considered all of the available medical evidence, Record at 15-16, and asked the plaintiff about his activities of daily living and what precipitated the plaintiffs inability to straighten his back, ... The administrative law judge was entitled to accept the plaintiffs testimony on this point.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptom testimony to consider the claimant’s statements, treatment history, and objective medical evidence before discrediting the testimony.

Lorenzo Lopez, on Behalf of Roberta Lopez, Deceased v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-07-09

And though the ALJ discussed Mrs. Lopez’s testimony, her treatment history, and the objective medical evidence before discrediting her testimony, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, he did not explain the apparent conflict between that information and his conclusion that Mrs. Lopez was not credible.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider specified factors, including pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, functional restrictions, and daily activities.

Southard v. Barnhart · filed 2003-07-28(c)(3)

As part of this evaluation process, the ALJ recognized his obligation to consider subjective allegations, and to give careful consideration to the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; treatment, other than medication, for pain relief; functional restrictions; and plaintiff’s daily activities. Id. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3) (also listing any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms). It is not enough, however, for the ALJ simply to recite the factors described in the regulations. Instead, the determination “must contain specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by the evidence in the case record” and be “sufficiently specific” to inform subsequent reviewers of both the weight the ALJ gave to a claimant’s statements and the reasons for that weight.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant's symptoms and evaluate their intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects when determining the claimant's capacity for work.

Ranfos v. SSA · filed 2002-01-24(a), (b), (c)

The ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of the claimant's symptoms so that the ALJ can determine how the claimant's symptoms limit his or her capacity for work.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant to show a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, and requires the ALJ to evaluate relevant evidence, including objective findings, treatment, medication, and the claimant’s reports about symptom effects.

Delgado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-03-04(b), (c), and (c)(2)

To establish a disability, a claimant must demonstrate a medically determinable impairment that reasonably caused the pain or disabling symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). The ALJ evaluates all relevant evidence offered to support the alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Relevant evidence includes objective medical evidence, medications, treatments, and subjective reports of aggravating and ameliorating conditions and the effects of the symptoms on the claimant’s daily life. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-3; SSR 96-7p.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms such as pain to consider all symptoms and their consistency with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Joyce v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-05

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, an ALJ considers “all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”

Section 404.1529(a) requires a claimant's alleged pain or other symptoms to be associated with an impairment that could produce them and supported by medical signs and laboratory findings.

Melloni v. Massanari · filed 2004-05-19(a)

Although the degree of pain or the severity of other alleged symptoms need not be the inevitable result of an objective medical impairment, it must be associated with an impairment that could give rise to the symptoms. ... In addition to such descriptive testimony as is available, there must be “medical signs and laboratory findings” demonstrating a medical impairment that reasonably could produce the pain or other' symptoms, thereby leading to a conclusion that the individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(a) requires considering all symptoms, including pain, and assessing the extent to which they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical and other evidence when determining disability.

Allison v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-06-08(a)

Indeed, the ALJ’s question is entirely proper under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which states that in determining whether an individual is disabled, “we consider all of your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider subjective complaints of pain once the claimant establishes a medically determined impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain.

Indoranto, Kim v. Barnhart, Jo Anne · filed 2004-06-29

In assessing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ must consider subjective complaints of pain if the claimant can establish a medically determined impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating pain symptoms to consider their intensity and persistence in light of relevant objective medical evidence.

Busby v. Barnhart · filed 2004-07-13(c)

Further, in light of the fact that plaintiffs argument relies on § 404.1529(c), it appears that plaintiff is contending the ALJ did not properly evaluate the relevance of this procedure in determining the intensity and persistence of her pain symptoms. The ALJ, however, properly understood that the procedure involved a numbing of the nerves, and thus the ALJ appropriately recognized the procedure as a pain management tool. ... The court is persuaded that the ALJ properly considered the relevant objective medical evidence regarding this procedure, even if the ALJ did not necessarily understand that the precise mechanics of the procedure involved severing nerve roots in order to achieve the end result of blocking the pain.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate symptoms, including pain, in light of objective medical evidence and other evidence, and not find disability based on subjective symptoms alone.

Bush v. Barnhart · filed 2003-08-28(a), (c)(3)

According to the governing regulations, an ALJ may not find a claimant disabled based on subjective symptoms alone. ... Therefore, the court must conclude that the ALJ was in compliance with the regulations in finding that the objective diagnostic and clinical signs were inconsistent with Bush’s claim of disabling pain.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of pain: objective medical signs or laboratory findings must first establish an impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged pain, after which the adjudicator evaluates the pain’s persistence, intensity, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work using the available evidence.

Butler, Joan S. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2004-01-13(a)-(b), (c)(1)-(4)

The applicable regulations prescribe a two-step process to determine whether a claimant suffers from symptoms (including pain) that affect her ability to perform basic work activities. ... First, the claimant must adduce ‘‘medical signs or laboratory’’ findings evidencing a ‘‘medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce’’ the alleged pain. ... Once the claimant crosses this threshold, the second step assesses the persistence and intensity of the claimant’s pain as well as the extent to which it impairs her ability to work.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective complaints to confirm a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to produce the symptoms and consider relevant factors such as daily activities, symptoms, medication, treatment, other relief measures, and functional limitations.

Arruda v. Barnhart · filed 2004-04-12(b), (c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ recited the aforementioned relevant factors to consider and applied them to Arruda’s complaints and allegations of pain. ... The summary comports with the relevant analysis required under the regulations.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant to show by medical signs or findings a condition reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors, including daily activities, medication, and causes of pain, when symptoms exceed objectively verifiable evidence.

Taylor v. Barnhart · filed 2003-11-21(a)-(b); (c)(3)(i)-(iv)

Plaintiff must demonstrate by medical signs or findings that she has a condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. ... When the claimant alleges pain that exceeds the objectively verifiable evidence, the ALJ must consider several evaluative factors, including daily activities, medication, and causes of the pain, in order to determine the extent to which the pain affects the claimant’s functional capabilities. ... Thus, the ALJ properly considered the evaluative factors set forth in the regulations, and his determination that plaintiffs subjective complaints of pain should be discounted is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ assessing a claimant’s symptoms to consider all of the evidence in the record and give specific reasons for the weight assigned to the claimant’s testimony.

Johnson v. Barnhart · filed 2003-12-23(c)

In assessing the claimant’s credibility, the ALJ must consider all of the evidence in the record and give specific reasons for the weight accorded to the claimant’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective complaints of pain to consider all seven specified factors.

Canales v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-17(c)(3)

Based on the record of this protracted case, the court finds that the ALJ’s decision to deny plaintiff benefits was not supported by substantial evidence in that the ALJ did not adequately discuss all seven factors required to evaluate subjective complaints of pain.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to accept alleged functional limitations from pain and other symptoms only to the extent that they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs, laboratory findings, and other evidence.

Randolph v. Barnhart · filed 2004-09-13(a)

In light of these inconsistencies between Randolph's testimony and the medical evidence in the record, the ALJ did not err in partially discrediting the testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a) & 929(a) (recognizing that "alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain and other symptoms" must be accepted by the ALJ only to the extent that they can "reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence").

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's pain symptoms to consider the claimant's daily activities, pain characteristics, medications, treatment, measures used for relief, and other limitations or restrictions.

Audette v. SSA · filed 2004-11-17(c)(1), (c)(3)

The ALJ is required to consider the claimant's descriptions of her daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of her pain; the type and amount of any medications she is taking or has taken for pain or other symptoms; other treatments she has received or is receiving for pain or other symptoms; any measures she is using or has used to relieve pain, and other information about her limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. §§ 404.1529(c) (3) & 416.929(c) (3).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires evaluation of the intensity and persistence of symptoms when medical signs or laboratory findings show a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce them.

Baranich v. Barnhart · filed 2005-04-19(c)(1)

In assessing Baranich’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ explicitly stated that he was following the “requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and Social Security Ruling 96-7p.” These provisions govern the evaluation of subjective medical complaints. In particular, “[w]hen the medical signs or laboratory findings show that you have a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce your symptoms, . . . we must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of your symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). As this court has recognized, this analysis is not markedly different than the Duncan analysis. See McCoy v. Chater, 81 F.3d 44, 47 (6th Cir. 1995) (concluding that the most recent version of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 is “in no way . . . inconsistent with the standards applied by this court” in Duncan). The ALJ did not commit error in failing to explicitly follow Duncan.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate subjective pain complaints using objective medical evidence and other consistent evidence, considering factors such as daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, and treatment.

Cross v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-06-14(c)(3)

The regulations set forth factors that the ALJ should consider in assessing credibility. These include the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and treatment or measures, other than medication, taken to relieve pain. ... As a practical matter, in the assessment of credibility, the weight of the objective medical evidence remains an important consideration. The regulation expressly provides that “other evidence” of symptoms causing work-related limitations can be considered if “consistent with the objective medical evidence.” ... The specific factors identified by the regulation as relevant to evaluating subjective complaints of pain are intended to uncover a degree of severity of the underlying impairment not susceptible to proof by objective medical evidence. When a claimant presents credible evidence of these factors, such proof may justify the imposition of work-related limitations beyond those dictated by the objective medical evidence. The discretion afforded by the courts to the ALJ’s evaluation of such evidence is extremely broad.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating pain and other subjective symptoms to assess their severity and effect on work, using relevant factors such as daily activities and consistency of the claimant's statements.

Scatorchia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-06-15(c)

Under the applicable Social Security regulations, allegations of pain and other subjective symptoms advanced by a claimant must be supported by objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. If an ALJ concludes that the available medical findings and evidence could reasonably cause a claimant’s alleged subjective symptoms, the ALJ must attempt to ascertain and evaluate the severity of the claimant’s pain as well as the degree to which it may limit the claimant’s ability to perform various types of work. “This obviously requires the ALJ to determine the extent to which a claimant is accurately stating the degree of pain or the extent to which he or she is disabled by it.” Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999). When an ALJ undertakes this required credibility determination, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and Social Security Ruling 96-7p provide necessary guidance. SSR 96-7p articulates several factors for an ALJ to consider in making the credibility determination about pain and subjective symptoms, including, inter alia: “the individual’s daily activities” and “the consistency of the individual’s own statements.” SSR 96-7p. Those are the factors that the ALJ considered here in determining that Scatorchia was not fully credible.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to evaluate pain and other symptoms under its requirements without explicitly following the Sixth Circuit’s Duncan framework.

Pasco v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-06-23

To the extent that Pasco alleges that the ALJ failed to analyze Pasco’s complaints of pain and other physical or mental limitations under Duncan, we find that this allegation has no merit. The ALJ specifically noted in his decision that he had evaluated her symptoms, including pain, under the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929, and Social Security Ruling 96-7p. (J.A. at 19). This Court has previously held that analysis under these regulations is not inconsistent with the standards we set forth in Duncan. McCoy v. Chater, 81 F.3d F.3d 44, 47 (6th Cir. 1995). We thus agree with other panels of this Court that an ALJ who follows the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 does not commit error by failing to explicitly follow Duncan. See Baranich v. Barnhart, 2005 WL 894363, *5 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ assessing pain allegations to consider relevant evidence, including medication, daily activities, and consistency with objective medical evidence, but does not require a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation.

Carson v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-05(c)

Mr. Carson next argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate, under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), Mr. Carson’s allegations of totally disabling pain, and failed to discuss all of the pertinent factors. We disagree. ... In finding Mr. Carson’s pain only “limiting,” the ALJ properly considered factors pertinent to deciding, at the third prong, whether Mr. Carson’s complaints of severe pain were credible: the medication Mr. Carson takes for pain, the alleged effect of Mr. Carson’s symptoms on the activities of daily living and basic task performance, and the consistency of his subjective complaints with the objective medical evidence. ... And despite Mr. Carson’s assertion, the ALJ did not err by failing to “discuss all of the factors” identified in Luna. ... An ALJ is not required to step through “a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” ... “So long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the claimant’s credibility,” which the ALJ in this case did, “the dictates of Kepler are satisfied.”

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to reject alleged pain when it does not arise from a medically established affliction.

Edwards v. Barnhart · filed 2005-08-05

The ALJ may reject claims of pain that do not seem to come from any medically established affliction.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to apply its listed factors when evaluating a claimant's subjective symptoms, including pain.

Lockhart v. Barnhart · filed 2005-09-16

The record establishes that the ALJ applied the proper factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, did not reject the complaint of pain solely due to a lack of objective medical evidence, and provided several clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to justify his credibility determination.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to acknowledge conflicts in evidence about a claimant's symptoms and explain why one view is accepted over another.

Johnson v. SSA · filed 2005-11-08

But, when there is such a conflict in the evidence, the ALJ must acknowledge that conflict and state his or her reasons for adopting one view and rejecting the other. See generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. See also Social Security Ruling 96-7p, Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements. 1996 WL 374186 (July 2, 1996). Here, the ALJ appears to have overlooked that conflict or, perhaps, simply forgot to include a discussion of it in his opinion. Accordingly, remanding this matter to the ALJ for further consideration seems the most appropriate course of action.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of a claimant's daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, and other measures used to alleviate pain when evaluating subjective pain complaints.

Arroyo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-11-16(c)(3)(i-vii)

It is true that pain “might suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone.” A claimant may therefore submit other evidence for consideration, such as his daily activities; the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; the types of medication taken for the pain; and any other measures taken to alleviate pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i-vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i-vii).

Section 404.1529, together with related authorities, requires an ALJ to give specific reasons for discounting a claimant’s subjective testimony and bars relying solely on a conflict with objective medical evidence.

Schmidt, Robert E. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne · filed 2005-01-14

These regulations and cases, taken together, require an ALJ to articulate specific reasons for discounting a claimant’s testimony as being less than credible, and preclude an ALJ from “merely ignoring” the testimony or relying solely on a conflict between the objective medical evidence and the claimant’s testimony as a basis for a negative credibility finding.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective complaints to consider relevant evidence and explain how the factors support the credibility determination.

Schmidt v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-01-14

By considering these factors and explaining how they factored into his credibility analysis, the ALJ properly followed the requirements for evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(a) requires medical signs and laboratory findings showing a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain or other symptoms; subjective reports alone do not establish disability.

Fisher v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-24(a)

Subjective reports will not alone establish a disability; objective medical evidence must also be present. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)(“... there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show that you have a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged....”).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's symptoms to consider the relevant evidence and adequately articulate the reasoning for the credibility determination, but it does not require separate discussion of every listed factor.

Masch v. Barnhart · filed 2005-12-20(c)(3)

While SSR 96-7p and § 404.1529 do not require the ALJ to analyze and elaborate on each of the seven factors when making a credibility determination, the ALJ must sufficiently articulate her assessment of the evidence to assure the court that she considered the important evidence and to enable the court to trace the path of her reasoning.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of symptoms: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and work-related functional effects using all available evidence.

Brown v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-12(b), (c)(1)

First, the claimant must show, citing “medical signs and laboratory findings,” the existence of “a medically determinable impairment ... which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b). This finding “does not involve a determination as to the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of [the] symptoms.” ... Then, the judge must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s pain along with the extent to which the symptoms or pain limit the claimant’s capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). In making this determination, the judge considers “all of the available evidence, including [the claimant’s] medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements from [the claimant], [the claimant’s] treating or examining physician or psychologist, or other persons[.]”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to articulate specific, evidence-based reasons for discounting a claimant’s testimony about limitations and does not permit relying solely on a conflict with objective medical evidence.

TREGLER v. Barnhart · filed 2006-02-06

As the Seventh Circuit has noted, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, Social Security Ruling 96-7p, and numerous Seventh Circuit decisions, taken together, “require an ALJ to articulate specific reasons for discounting a claimant’s testimony as being less than credible, and preclude an ALJ from ‘merely ignoring’ the testimony or relying solely on a conflict between the objective medical evidence and the claimant’s testimony as a basis for a negative credibility finding.” ... In this case, the ALJ simply stated that “the undersigned finds claimant’s allegations regarding his limitations are not totally credible for the reasons set forth in the body of the decision” but he fails to set forth any reasons in the body of the decision.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate alleged pain and other symptoms by considering whether objective medical evidence shows an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, and by considering their intensity and persistence in assessing the claimant's capacity for work using all available evidence.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-03-01

In evaluating a claimant’s allegations of pain and limitations, the ALJ considers (1) whether the objective medical evidence shows “the existence of a medical impairment(s) which ...could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged;” and (2) the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to evaluate a person’s capacity for work, considering all available evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. The ALJ’s determinations of credibility are given great weight, and are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the claimant's pain and then to consider factors such as daily activities and pain treatment in assessing how much the pain limits basic work activities.

Hillman v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-20

Under the regulations, the ALJ must first determine whether there is a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain. If the ALJ finds such an impairment, he then has to consider a variety of factors, including the claimant’s daily activities and treatment for pain, to determine the extent to which the pain limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical signs and laboratory findings to show an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain, while pain severity remains a subjective matter that cannot be confirmed or refuted solely from objective medical evidence.

Johnson, Michelle M. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2006-06-05(b)

“Medical signs and laboratory findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, must show the existence of a medical impairment(s) which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (emphasis added), but the word we have italicized underscores the difficulty of confirming or refuting pain testimony. Even when as in this case the claimant attributes her pain to a physical rather than a psychological cause, the administrative law judge cannot disbelieve her testimony solely because it seems in excess of the “objective” medical testimony.

Section 404.1529(b) permits symptoms to affect a claimant’s ability to work only when they result from an underlying physical or mental impairment established by medical signs or laboratory findings, and complaints of pain lacking full objective support must be considered but need not be credited.

Dixon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-06-07(b)

The regulations state that symptoms will only be considered to affect a claimant’s ability to perform work activities if such symptoms result from an underlying physical or mental impairment that has been demonstrated to exist by medical signs or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Further, while complaints of pain not fully supported by objective medical evidence should be considered and not discounted without contrary medical evidence, they do not have to be credited. See Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.3d 1269 (3d Cir. 1987).

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ, when evaluating disabling pain, to consider factors including daily activities, pain characteristics, medications and their side effects, and other treatment or measures used to relieve pain.

Almeida v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-30(c)

At the second step, the ALJ should consider factors such as the claimant’s daily activities; the location, frequency, duration, and intensity of the pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications taken; and any other treatments the claimant has received or measures used to reheve pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's pain and other symptoms to consider all relevant evidence, not merely objective medical evidence or a conclusory credibility statement.

David v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-14

When assessing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ must consider subjective complaints of pain. Where a claimant presents evidence of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged, the ALJ is obliged to examine and weigh all the evidence, regardless of whether the intensity or persistence of the pain is substantiated by objective medical evidence. ... It follows that observations by treating and examining physicians, third-party testimony, the claimant’s testimony and daily activities, functional restrictions, pain medication taken, and aggravating or precipitating factors may all be relevant to the pain and credibility assessment. ... 19 F.3d at 334; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929(c); SSR 96-7p. Thus, it is not sufficient for the ALJ to make a single, conclusory statement that “the individual’s allegations have been considered” or that “the allegations are not credible,” nor is it enough for the ALJ to simply recite the factors described in the regulations for evaluating symptoms. ... Ultimately, the objective evidence contradicting Plaintiffs claims provides a sufficient reason for the ALJ to grant less credit to Plaintiffs statements concerning his back pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(I) permits an adjudicator to consider household and social activities when evaluating complaints of disabling pain or other symptoms.

Powers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-08-17(c)(3)(I)

Indeed, Powers’s daily activities of crocheting, grocery-shopping, cooking family meals, visiting with her sister-in-law, hanging laundry, attending church, and outdoor walking for roughly a mile and a half, belie any subjective claims of pain. See Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 1993) (“The ALJ may consider the household and social activities in evaluating complaints of disabling pain or other symptoms.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(I).

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant to show a medically determinable condition reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms, and permits consideration of statements, daily activities, pain, medication, and treatment when symptoms appear more limiting than the objective evidence.

Jenkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-08-18(b), (c)(3)

It was Jenkins’ burden to demonstrate by medical indications or findings that an underlying condition existed, which would reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms complained of. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b). If the symptoms suggest a greater functional restriction than is demonstrated by the objective evidence alone, the Commissioner considers evidence such as the claimant’s statements, daily activities, duration and frequency of pain, medication, and treatment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). The Commissioner has discretion to evaluate the credibility of the claimant’s complaints and draw a conclusion based upon medical findings and other available information. The ALJ’s rejection of Jenkins’ subjective complaints is consistent with the medical evidence in this record.

Section 404.1529(a) requires adjudicators to consider all of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, against objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Johnston v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-08(a)

ALJ’s are required to evaluate a claimant’s credibility according to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which states in relevant part: ... in determining whether you are disabled, we consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider seven specified factors when assessing the credibility of a claimant’s asserted subjective symptoms.

Kratman v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-30(c)(3)

When assessing the credibility of a claimant’s asserted subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider a series of factors. ... 1. The individual’s daily activities; ... 2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the individual’s pain or other symptoms; ... 3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; ... 4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; ... 5. Treatment, other than medication, the individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; ... 6. Any measures other than treatment the individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and ... 7.Any other factors concerning the individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s statements about symptoms and their effects on daily activities and ability to work, assess them against the medical evidence, and account for their total limiting effects.

Rivera v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-28(a), (c)(3)

As the Government argues and acknowledges, the ALJ should have evaluated whether Rivera’s complaints were consistent with the medical evidence, especially since Rivera has severe impairments. ... Full consideration of these symptoms and complaints was necessary for the ALJ to determine the “total limiting effects” on Rivera’s ability to perform substantial gainful activity.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether an impairment could reasonably be expected to produce pain and, if so, consider factors such as daily activities and pain treatment in assessing how pain limits basic work activities.

Ward v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-02(b), (c)

Ward also argues that the ALJ failed to follow the requirements in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 for evaluating her allegations of disabling pain and the resulting limitations on her ability to work. Under the regulations, the ALJ must first determine whether there is a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain. If the ALJ finds such an impairment, he then has to consider a variety of factors, including the claimant’s daily activities and treatment for pain, to determine the extent to which the pain limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities. ... Here, the ALJ evaluated Ward’s testimony in light of all the objective medical evidence and concluded that the evidence did not support her pain allegations to the extent alleged. ... The ALJ applied the correct legal standard in evaluating the claimant’s pain, and there is substantial evidence in the record to support his conclusion that her pain is not as limiting as she reports.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s statements about symptoms and their functional effects when a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce them, and bars rejecting those statements solely because objective medical evidence does not affirmatively substantiate them.

Robbins v. Social Security Administration · filed 2006-10-26

When giving such consideration, if the record establishes the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably give rise to the reported symptoms, an ALJ must make a finding as to the credibility of the claimant’s statements about the symptoms and their functional effect. See Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-7p (July 2, 1996) (“SSR 96-7p”), 1996 WL 374186, at *1; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996). ... While an ALJ may find testimony not credible in part or in whole, he or she may not disregard it solely because it is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(d)(1) requires the ALJ to consider subjective symptom testimony along with medical evidence when assessing the severity of an impairment.

Petersen v. Barnhart · filed 2006-12-20(d)(1)

However, the ALJ was required to consider subjective symptom testimony, in addition to medical evidence, when assessing the severity of Petersen’s MS. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms to consider the relevant factors and give specific, evidence-supported reasons for the credibility determination, but it does not require formalistic rules of articulation.

Undheim v. Barnhart · filed 2007-01-19(c)

He specifically argues that the ALJ did not follow 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), which requires an ALJ to consider a list of factors when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms. When evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s subjective allegations of pain, an ALJ must give specific reasons for his findings. The reasons must supported by the evidence in the case record, and they must be sufficiently specific to make clear to the claimant and to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the claimant’s statements and the reasons for that weight. An ALJ is not required to follow formalistic rules when articulating the reasons for his credibility determination. ... In this case, the opinion as a whole gives sufficient reasons and documentation for the ALJ’s credibility determination. ... The ALJ’s discussion was therefore sufficient to meet the requirements of section 404.1529(d).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the adjudicator to consider specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, and other relief measures, in addition to objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of a claimant's statements.

Ramsey v. SSA · filed 2007-02-13(c)(3)

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the adjudicator must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individuals’ statements. ... Those factors include the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes (or has taken) to alleviate pain or other symptoms; and any measures other than medication that the claimant receives (or has received) for relief of pain or other symptoms. Id. See also Avery, 797 F.2d at 2 3 ; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to evaluate a claimant's subjective symptoms using factors including daily activities, the frequency of pain, medication and its side effects, and other treatment that relieves pain.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-04-03(c)

In so concluding, the ALJ properly considered plaintiffs testimony and weighed it in accordance with various factors, including plaintiffs daily activities, the frequency of pain, the type, dosage, and side effects of medication, and other treatment that relieves pain. (T. 25).

Section 404.1529(b) requires objective clinical signs and laboratory findings showing a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant's alleged symptoms.

Jopson v. Astrue · filed 2007-09-24(b)

The court understands that, however genuine a claimant’s complaints may appear to be, the regulations require objective clinical signs and laboratory findings which demonstrate the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating complaints of pain.

Lanier v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2007-10-26(c)(3)

The ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating her complaints of pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s statements and other evidence, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and functional restrictions, when objective evidence alone does not establish symptom severity.

Rasmussen, Tamera v. Astrue, Michael · filed 2007-11-06(c)(3)

Although an ALJ may not ignore a claimant’s subjective reports of pain simply because they are not fully supported by objective medical evidence, discrepancies between objective evidence and self-reports may suggest symptom exaggeration. Sienkiewicz v. Barnhart, 409 F.3d 798, 804 (7th Cir. 2005). Here, the ALJ properly considered Rasmussen’s testimony in light of the factors enumerated in SSR 96-7p and concluded that Rasmussen had significant functional limitations that precluded some, but not all, work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(b) requires an ALJ first to determine whether objective medical evidence shows an underlying medical condition and then to determine whether that evidence confirms the alleged pain's severity or shows that the condition could reasonably be expected to produce disabling pain.

Sullenger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-11-28(b)

The analysis under 20 CFR § 404.1529 is two-pronged. Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 853 (6th Cir. 1986). First, the ALJ must examine whether there is “objective medical evidence of an underlying medical condition.” Id. If there is objective medical evidence, then the ALJ must decide if the objective medical evidence: (1) confirms the severity of the alleged pain; or (2) if the established medical condition is of such a severity that it can be expected to produce the disabling pain. Id. In the case at bar, there is some objective medical evidence of an underlying medical condition. The Second ALJ determined, however, that the weight of the objective medical evidence, particularly the numerous MRIs, CT scans, and examinations by medical personnel, does not confirm the severity of the alleged pain. For that reason, he found Sullenger not credible. We will not disturb ALJ Craig’s credibility determination.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, to consider their consistency with the objective medical and other evidence and explain the reasons for discounting the claimant’s complaints.

Barton v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-10

Although the ALJ in this case wrote that he had considered plaintiffs complaints pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929, and Social Security Ruling 96-7p, which correspond to Polaski and credibility determination, he failed to list even one of the necessary factors, and failed to offer any discussion indicating his reasons for discrediting plaintiff.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of the intensity and persistence of symptoms only after medical evidence establishes a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce them.

Robinson v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-25(c)(1)

Robinson argues that the ALJ failed to conform to the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 by neglecting to address the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of her self-reported symptoms. That was not necessary, however, because the medical evidence did not confirm that Robinson had a medically determinable impairment.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all symptoms and determine whether alleged functional limitations are consistent with objective medical and other evidence, while subsection (c)(3) identifies factors relevant to that evaluation.

Temple v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-17(a), (c)(3)

Administrative Law Judges are required to evaluate a claimant’s credibility concerning pain according to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which states in relevant part: ... In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, including pain, we will consider all of the available evidence, including your medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings and statements about how your symptoms affect you. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Factors relevant to your symptoms, such as pain, which we will consider include: ... (vii) Other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Similarly, the ALJ’s credibility assessment is also supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints to consider and specifically address the relevant factors, including medication side effects and the claimant’s treatment history.

Kirby v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-27(c)(3)

On remand, the ALJ must consider and specifically address each of the factors laid out in SSR 96-7p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the claimant’s daily activities, the characteristics and triggers of the symptoms, medication and other treatment, measures used for relief, and functional limitations.

Neave v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-31(c)(3)

Rather, this is but one factor to consider, along with the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency and intensity of the pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication the claimant takes; treatment other than medication; any other measures the claimant has used to relieve the pain or other symptoms; and functional limitations and restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 96-7p.

Section 404.1529(b) requires objective medical signs and laboratory findings to show a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain.

Sloan v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-13(b)

First, “[mjedical signs and laboratory findings ... must show the existence of a medical impairment(s) ... which could reasonably be expected to produce,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b), “the actual pain, in the amount and degree, alleged by the claimant.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider all available evidence and determine whether the alleged limitations are consistent with the medical signs, laboratory findings, and other evidence.

Keith v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-28

In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, including pain, we will consider all of the available evidence, including your medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings and statements about how your symptoms affect you.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant's symptoms limiting only to the extent that the alleged functional limitations are reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Newton v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-16(c)(4)

A claimant’s symptoms, including pain, are considered to diminish her capacity to work to the extent that alleged functional limitations are reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(a) requires a claimant's statements about pain or other symptoms to be supported by medical signs and laboratory findings showing an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, considered with the other evidence, before they can establish disability.

Cox v. Commissioner of Social Securit · filed 2008-09-30(a)

Under the SSA regulations, a disability claimant’s statements about his or her pain or other symptoms, standing alone, cannot establish that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Rather, “there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show that [the claimant has] a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and which, when considered with all of the other evidence (including statements about the intensity and persistence of [the] pain or other symptoms which may reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings), would lead to a conclusion that [the claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an administrative law judge evaluating symptoms to consider the entire record and specified factors, rather than reject symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Brihn v. Astrue · filed 2008-10-22(c)

When conducting this evaluation, the administrative law judge may not reject the claimant’s statements regarding her symptoms on the sole ground that the statements are not substantiated by objective medical evidence. Instead, the administrative law judge must consider the entire case record to determine whether the individual’s statements are credible. Relevant factors the administrative law judge must evaluate are the individual’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency and intensity of the individual’s pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; other treatment or measures taken for relief of pain; the individual’s prior work record and efforts to work; and any other factors concerning the individual’s functional limitations and restrictions. SSR 96-7p; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c) requires adjudicators evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms to consider the entire case record, including objective medical evidence and factors such as daily activities, medication, treatment, work history, and functional limitations.

Hofer v. Astrue · filed 2008-11-17(c)

Relevant factors the administrative law judge must evaluate are the individual’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency and intensity of the individual’s pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; other treatment or measures taken for relief of pain; the individual’s prior work record and efforts to work; and any other factors concerning the individual’s functional limitations and restrictions. SSR 96-7p; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). ... Contrary to plaintiffs assertions, the administrative law judge properly considered the objective medical evidence and the other relevant factors listed in the regulation in making his credibility determination.

Section 404.1529 requires the adjudicator to consider a claimant's daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment methods, and other functional-limitations factors when evaluating subjective complaints.

Rohrbaugh v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-05

Factors the A.L.J. must consider in evaluating the veracity of a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain include, among other things, consideration of Plaintiffs daily activities; the location, duration, frequency and intensity of pain and other symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; other treatment methods used by the claimant and other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations due to pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529; 416.929.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms to consider factors including daily activities, the nature and intensity of symptoms, aggravating factors, medication side effects, and treatment or relief measures.

Schuhardt v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-17(c)(3)(i)-(iv)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider the following factors, among others: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) adverse side effects of medications; and (5) treatment or measures taken by the claimant for relief of symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(iv).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: the claimant must show an impairment that could reasonably cause the symptom, and the adjudicator must then assess the symptom's intensity, persistence, and functional impact using relevant factors.

DaSilva-Santos v. Astrue · filed 2009-02-10

When a claim of disability is based on a subjective symptom such as pain, a two step analysis is conducted. First, the claimant has to show that there are medical records of the impairments that reasonably can be expected to cause the pain. Second, the hearing officer has to consider the intensity and persistence of the pain and its functional impact on the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Several factors such as daily activities, medications, and measures to relieve pain are considered.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using relevant factors such as daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and other measures.

Addison White, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-02-24(a)

First, the ALJ will ask whether the there is an underlying medically determinable physical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(a). Second, if the ALJ finds that such an impairment exists, then he must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms on the individual’s ability to do basic work activities. Id. Relevant factors for the ALJ to consider in his evaluation of symptoms include the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate the symptoms; other treatment undertaken to relieve symptoms; other measures taken to relieve symptoms, such as lying on one’s back; and any other factors bearing on the limitations of the claimant to perform basic functions. Id. Rogers, 486 F.3d at 247; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Here, the ALJ found that White’s “description of his limitations exceeds medical substantiation, is not consistent with other evidence and is not credible.” A.R. at 19 (ALJ Decision at 6). ... But this “mischaracterizes [White’s] testimony regarding the scope of [his] daily activities [and] fails to examine the physical effects coextensive with their performance.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 248-49. ... White’s subjective complaints are consistent with this testimony and with the activities questionnaires he completed as part of his application. ... As in Rogers, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision “fails to ‘contain specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by the evidence in the case record’” and is not “‘sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual and to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to [White’s] statements and the reasons for that weight.’” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 248-49 (quoting Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *4).

Section 404.1529 requires an adjudicator first to find a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and functional limits on the claimant’s ability to work.

Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-03-27(b), (c)

When evaluating Allen's statements of subjective pain, however, the ALJ was required to go further and determine the actual intensity and persistence of Allen's symptoms and how these symptoms limit Allen's ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) ("When the medical signs or laboratory findings show that you have a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce your symptoms, such as pain, we must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of your symptoms so that we can determine how your symptoms limit your capacity for work."); see also § 404.1529(b) ("The finding that your impairment(s) could reasonably be expected to produce your pain or other symptoms does not involve a determination as to the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of your symptoms.").

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms before subjective complaints can establish disability.

POUPORE v. Astrue · filed 2009-04-16(b), (c)

Finally, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Poupore's subjective complaints of pain were insufficient to establish disability. His subjective complaints were unsupported by objective medical evidence tending to support a conclusion that he has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), (c).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to determine that a claimant's subjective complaints of pain are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

McQueen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-04-23

An ALJ is permitted to determine that subjective complaints of pain are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence on the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; see also Hartranft, 181 F.3d at 362 (observing that ALJ must evaluate “the extent to which a claimant is accurately stating the degree of pain or the extent to which he . . . is disabled by it”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating pain to consider a claimant’s daily activities, precipitating factors, medication, and other treatment.

Boehm v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-05-06(c)(3)

The ALJ also can consider the plaintiffs daily activities, the precipitating factors and the effect of medication and other treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(3).

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms before subjective complaints can establish disability.

Poupore v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2009-05-19(b), (c)

Finally, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Poupore’s subjective complaints of pain were insufficient to establish disability. His subjective complaints were unsupported by objective medical evidence tending to support a conclusion that he has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), (c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the adjudicator to evaluate pain and other symptoms using the claimant's work history, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication and treatment, functional restrictions, and daily activities.

Peterson v. SSA · filed 2009-06-12(c)(3)

The ALJ's decision demonstrates that he followed the Avery guidelines and the regulations in evaluating plaintiff's alleged disabling pain. The ALJ considered all of plaintiff's symptoms and the extent to which they were consistent with the objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the opinion evidence, based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 & 404.1527 and SSRs 96-2p, 96-4p, 96-5p, 96-6p, 96-7p and 06-3p. See CR at 18. He specifically noted that "whenever statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, the [ALJ] must make a finding on the credibility of the statements based on a consideration of the entire case record." CR at 18. To that end, the ALJ evaluated plaintiff's prior work record, his activities of daily life ("ADL"), the location, duration, frequency and intensity of his pain, factors that precipitate or aggravate the symptoms, what medications plaintiff was taking to alleviate the pain, what treatment other than medication plaintiff had received to reduce the pain, any non-treatment measures plaintiff had pursued to relieve his pain, and finally any other factors concerning his functional limitations and restrictions due his pain and other symptoms. See CR at 19.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider specified evidence and factors when evaluating a claimant's pain and other symptoms.

McQuestion v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-23(c)(3)

Rather, the ALJ must consider all of the evidence, including the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medication the claimant takes to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures the claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his back, standing for fifteen to twenty minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 96-7p.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant's statements about pain or other symptoms alone do not establish disability.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-07(a)

As the relevant Social Security regulations make clear, however, a claimant’s “statements about [her] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [she is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); ... The Court finds, therefore, that there exists substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s credibility determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the agency to carefully consider evidence from other persons about the extent of a claimant’s pain and how it affects the claimant’s ability to function.

Willcockson v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-28(c)(3)

And we question whether witness statements corroborating a claimant’s subjective complaints can logically be treated as cumulative by assuming that they would have been rejected for the same reasons that the claimant statements were rejected, where the agency itself says that because subjective complaints are hard to document, it will “carefully consider” evidence from other persons addressing the extent of the claimant’s pain and how it affects his or her ability to function.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires the Commissioner to evaluate the intensity and persistence of pain, and how it limits work capacity, when medical signs or laboratory findings document an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain.

Stanton v. Astrue · filed 2008-09-30(c)(1)

Additionally, the Regulations state that when the medical signs or laboratory findings document a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged, the Commissioner must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the pain to determine how it limits the claimant’s capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires pain and other symptoms to be considered as part of the overall five-step disability analysis and evaluated in combination with objective medical evidence and all other relevant information.

Green v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-05(a), (d)

Consideration of pain and other symptoms should be analyzed as a part of the overall five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d). An individual’s statements about his or her symptoms are not enough to establish the existence of a physical or mental impairment or that an individual is disabled. SSR 96-7p. While subjective complaints of pain and other symptoms are considered to be an integral part of the evaluation and, indeed, all stated symptoms must be considered, they are assessed in combination with objective medical evidence including laboratory findings and medical signs. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s pain and other symptoms using the listed factors.

McPherson v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the ALJ properly considered Claimant’s pain and other symptoms pursuant to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis: the ALJ must determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects on the claimant’s capacity to work.

Rockwood v. Astrue · filed 2009-04-30(a), (c)

The “ALJ’s credibility assessment must be based on a two step analysis of pertinent evidence in the record.” ... First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has medically determinable impairments, “which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); S.S.R. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *2. ... Second, if medically determinable impairments are shown, then the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s capacity to work.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ assessing a claimant's credibility to consider objective medical evidence and evidence about the claimant's daily activities, symptoms, aggravating factors, medications, pain relief, non-treatment measures, and other functional limitations.

Wynn v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-08

In assessing a claimant’s credibility, an ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence, as well as evidence concerning: (1) the plaintiffs daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency and intensity of the plaintiffs pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate or aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of plaintiffs medications; (5) other means of pain relief received by the plaintiff; (6) non-treatment measures used by plaintiff for pain relief; and (7) any other factors concerning the individual’s functional limitations and restrictions.

Sections 404.1529(b) and (c) require objective medical evidence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms when evaluating subjective complaints.

Poupore v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-21(b), (c)

His subjective complaints were unsupported by objective medical evidence tending to support a conclusion that he has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects, and consider their consistency with objective medical and non-medical evidence.

Ray v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-07(a), (b), (c), (c)(3)-(4)

As to a claimant’s alleged “subjective symptoms,” including pain, they “must be supported by objective medical evidence.” ... In giving evidentiary weight to these symptoms, the Commissioner first determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms. ... Next, the Commissioner evaluates the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms to determine the extent to which those symptoms actually limit the claimant’s capacity for work. ... In making this evaluation the Commissioner looks at the consistency of the subjective symptoms with first the objective medical evidence and then the non-medical evidence.