20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formalistic factor-by-factor symptom analysis if the ALJ identifies the specific evidence supporting the evaluation.

Yuille v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-03-22(c)(3)

Furthermore, the courts do not require the ALJ ... to take a formalistic factor-by-factor approach in making a credibility determination. Instead, the ALJ is only required to set forth the specific evidence she relies on in evaluating the claimant’s credibility.

Section 404.1529 uses a two-part symptom analysis, but an ALJ need not discuss every listed factor or conduct a factor-by-factor analysis.

Ash-Shakoor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-22(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. 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. ... It is well established that the ALJ is not required to discuss every factor or conduct a factor-by-factor analysis.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formalistic factor-by-factor symptom analysis if the ALJ identifies the specific evidence supporting the evaluation.

Risley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-22(c)(3)

However, a “formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence” is not required “[s]o long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the claimant’s” symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require an ALJ to discuss each individual symptom factor.

Cason v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-25(c)(3)

However, the caselaw in this Circuit has made clear that an ALJ is not required to discuss each individual factor set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii) requires consideration of seven symptom factors but does not require the ALJ to address each factor individually in the written decision.

Bryson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)(i)–(vii)

While the ALJ should consider the factors, she is not required to address each one in her opinion.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require an ALJ to discuss every symptom factor explicitly when the decision applies the correct standard and substantial evidence supports the evaluation.

Snogles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

the Commissioner points out that although Plaintiff lists several factors that can be relevant to the ALJ’s evaluation of symptoms, the ALJ is not required to “explicitly” consider each of those factors. ... The Court’s role is to determine whether the ALJ applied the correct standard, and if she did, whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. With regard to the ALJ’s assessment of the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s symptoms, the Court finds for the Commissioner on both issues.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require an ALJ to make a specific finding on every listed symptom factor.

CONTE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-05(c)(3)

“The list [of factors contained in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)] is not comprehensive, nor is it mandatory for ALJs to go through each factor on the list in their opinions.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require discussion and citation of every possible symptom factor.

McCarty v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-04-27(c)(3)

The decision need not contain discussion and citations as to every possible factor to be sufficiently specific. See Thacker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 99 F. App’x 661, 664 (6th Cir. 2004).

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of medical evidence, claimant statements, medical-source information, and all other relevant evidence, without mandatory analysis of every factor.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-28(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must look to medical evidence, statements by the claimant, other information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence on the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304. Beyond medical evidence, SSR 16-3p sets forth seven factors that the ALJ should consider. The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors but should show that she considered the relevant evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of objective evidence, daily activities, pain, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional limitations, but not discussion of every record detail for every factor.

Young v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-09(c)

When assessing a claimant's subjective symptom allegations, an ALJ must consider several factors, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant's daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, course of treatment, and functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5, 7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017). “An ALJ need not discuss every detail in the record as it relates to every factor,” but an ALJ may not ignore an entire line of evidence contrary to her ruling.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of objective evidence, work history, daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, and functional restrictions, but does not require discussion of every factor.

Kisling v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-09(c)

When evaluating a Social Security claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ “must consider objective medical evidence, the claimant’s work history, and other evidence relating to (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the claimant’s functional restrictions.” ... The ALJ is not required to discuss each of these factors.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require discussion of a factor for which the record contains no evidence.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-19(c)(3)

However, an ALJ does not necessarily need to discuss every factor in every case – for example, if there is no evidence regarding one of the factors, that factor will not be discussed because it is not relevant to the case. SSR 16-3p at *8.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (4) require discussion of pertinent symptom factors and consideration of inconsistencies within the evidence.

MARSHALL v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-05-26(c)(3)–(4)

The ALJ need only "discuss the factors pertinent to the evidence of record." SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8. The ALJ should also consider any inconsistencies within the evidence, including conflicting statements made by the claimant and others like treating sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require discussion of a factor when no record evidence makes it relevant.

Kingsley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-10(c)(3)

However, an ALJ does not necessarily need to discuss every factor in every case – for example, if there is no evidence regarding one of the factors, that factor will not be discussed because it is not relevant to the case. SSR 16-3p at *8.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require discussion of every factor when substantial evidence supports the credibility determination.

PILION v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-14(c)(3)

In any event, “[t]he fact that the ALJ did not discuss all of the § 404.1529 factors does not warrant remand, given that his credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.”

An ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence must consider the regulatory factors, but need not discuss each factor explicitly if the decision shows the factors were examined and gives good reasons for discounting the complaints.

Levill v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-28(c)

When analyzing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ must consider various factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (explaining the factors are (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, intensity, and frequency of pain; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) any functional restrictions); see also Forte v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 892, 895 (8th Cir. 2004) (“[L]ack of objective medical evidence is a factor an ALJ may consider.”). However, the “ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor.” ... In conclusion, the Court finds the ALJ adequately, if not expressly, applied the Polaski factors and other factors, and sufficiently considered Plaintiff’s complaints of disabling pain and symptoms, but expressly discredited them for good reasons.

An ALJ need not analyze all seven symptom factors but must show that the relevant evidence was considered.

Reeves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-05(c)(3)

In performing this assessment, the ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors but must still show that he considered the relevant evidence. ... In this case, the ALJ applied the proper legal standards and reached a decision supported by substantial evidence in finding that Plaintiff’s subjective symptom complaints were inconsistent with the medical evidence.

An ALJ must consider the symptom factors but need not explicitly discuss every factor.

Berry v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-07(c)(3)

To make this assessment, the ALJ considers a variety of factors. See Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (listing factors); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). But the ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss each factor.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to acknowledge and examine the symptom-evaluation factors before discounting subjective allegations, but does not require a methodical discussion of every factor.

Richards v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-07-11(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective allegations. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2000). As long as the ALJ properly applies these five factors and gives several valid reasons for finding that the Plaintiff’s subjective allegations are not entirely reliable, the ALJ’s determination of subjective allegations is entitled to deference.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of objective evidence, statements, and symptom-related factors, but the ALJ need discuss only factors relevant to the symptom’s persistence, intensity, and limiting effects.

Bright v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-11(c)

SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7 (S.S.A. Mar. 16, 2016); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929. An ALJ need not discuss every factor, but only factors relevant to assessing the persistence, intensity, and limiting effects of a symptom. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional restrictions, but an ALJ need not discuss every factor individually or in depth.

Hanson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-14(c)(3)

These factors are codified at both 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3). The factors include (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. ... The ALJ is not required to discuss each factor individually or in depth.

An ALJ must consider the Section 404.1529 symptom factors and give express, evidence-based reasons for discounting complaints, but need not mechanically discuss each factor.

Kluesner v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-14(c)(3)

In doing so, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s prior work record and third-party observations as to the claimant’s daily activities; the duration, frequency and intensity of the symptoms; any precipitating and aggravating factors; the dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and any functional restrictions. Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 931 (8th Cir. 2010); Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). The ALJ is not mechanically obligated to discuss each of the above factors, however, when rejecting a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ must make an express credibility determination detailing his or her reasons for discrediting the testimony, and the ALJ’s credibility assessment must be based on substantial evidence. ... The Court finds that the ALJ appropriately considered plaintiff’s allegations of disabling pain and other limitations based on the objective medical evidence and plaintiff’s ability to perform activities of daily living.

An ALJ need not methodically discuss each symptom factor so long as the decision acknowledges and examines the factors before discounting the claimant’s allegations.

Collins v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-07-22(c)(3)

In assessing the subjective allegations of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. ... The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective allegations. ... In the present action, the ALJ fully complied with Polaski in his evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective allegations.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of the symptom factors and good reasons for discounting subjective complaints but does not require an explicit, in-depth discussion of each factor.

Moore v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-07-28

In addition to the claimant’s prior work record, the Polaski factors include: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) functional restrictions. Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. While an ALJ must consider these matters and give good reasons for discrediting a claimant’s subjective complaints, she need not explicitly discuss each of these factors in depth.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the listed symptom factors, but not an express written discussion of every factor; the decision must make sufficiently specific connections to permit meaningful review.

(SS) Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-01(c)(3)

Plaintiff is correct that under the regulations, the ALJ is to consider the listed factors. See See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) (“Factors relevant to your symptoms, such as pain, which we will consider include . . . [listing factors].”); ... However, the Court disagrees that the ALJ is required to expressly consider and develop a written record concerning consideration of every factor in every case, as Plaintiff suggests. Instead, the opinion must reflect specificity and connections demonstrating proper consideration, and resulting in a written record that allows a Court to conduct a meaningful review to determine whether the ALJ’s reasons proffered for discounting the testimony satisfy the clear and convincing standard.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider its seven symptom factors rather than substitute a conclusory lay judgment about daily activities for a medical assessment of the claimant’s capabilities.

Harrison v. Social Security · filed 2022-08-02(c)(3)

The ALJ wrongly concluded that because treatment allowed Harrison to increase the scope of her daily activities, she must then be capable of full-time, sustained work. Such a conclusion fails to consider that, as in this case, “[t]here can be a great distance between a patient who responds to treatment and one who is able to enter the workforce…” ... Also, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) lays out seven factors that ALJs are to consider when assessing how to credit claimants’ subjective statements. Instead of considering these factors, the ALJ made a conclusory analysis based on his own lay opinion regarding the extent of Harrison’s disabilities. This is legal error which requires remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of efforts to alleviate symptoms, treatment effectiveness, and other functional factors, without requiring discussion of every factor or piece of evidence.

Craddock v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-03(c)(3)

In conducting this analysis, the ALJ may consider several factors, including claimant’s efforts to alleviate his symptoms, whether any treatment was effective, and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4 *15-19; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); see also Temples v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 515 F. App’x 460, 462 (6th Cir. 2013) (stating that an ALJ properly considered a claimant’s ability to perform day-to-day activities in determining whether his testimony regarding his pain was credible). The regulations do not require the ALJ to discuss each factor or each piece of evidence, but only to acknowledge the factors and discuss the evidence that supports his decision.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of symptom factors but does not require explicit discussion of each factor.

Rhodes v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-09(c)(3)

To make this assessment, the ALJ considers a variety of factors. See Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (listing factors); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). But the ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss each factor. See Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004, 1012 (8th Cir. 2019).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven symptom factors but does not require discussion of a factor unsupported by an identified symptom or record evidence.

Kramer v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-10(c)(3)

Second, Plaintiff argues that, apart from “an erroneous evaluation” of her daily activities, the ALJ’s decision is “largely silent” as to any discussion of the remaining factors prescribed under the Regulations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Significantly, however, Plaintiff fails to point to any subjective symptoms she mentioned which the ALJ failed to consider in making her determinations regarding Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of the Polaski symptom factors, but an ALJ need not discuss each factor and may discount complaints inconsistent with the record if explicit good reasons are given.

Collins v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-16

When evaluating a claimant’s credibility as to her subjective complaints, the ALJ must consider the Polaski factors, which include: “the claimant’s prior work history; daily activities; duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; precipitating and aggravating factors; and functional restrictions.” The ALJ will also consider whether objective medical evidence supports the claimant’s subjective complaints, though he cannot discount the complaints solely because they’re unsupported by the objective medical evidence. The ALJ need not discuss each of the Polaski factors, “as long as he acknowledges and considers the factors before discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints.” Finally, “ALJs may discount claimants’ complaints if there are inconsistencies in the record as a whole, and we will defer to an ALJ’s credibility finding as long as the ALJ explicitly discredits a claimant’s testimony and gives a good reason for doing so.” ... The ALJ’s analysis complied with the relevant legal standards.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of objective and other symptom evidence, but the ALJ need not discuss every listed factor when substantial evidence supports the assessment.

MUNOZ v. SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-08-25(c)(3)

The fact that the ALJ did not discuss all of the § 404.1529 factors does not warrant remand, given that his credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of symptom factors but not discussion of every possible factor in every case.

Kelly v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-02

An ALJ is not required to discuss each possible factor in every case. See, e.g., Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013); Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 968 (8th Cir. 2010).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of symptom factors but not a factor-by-factor discussion when the ALJ identifies the specific evidence relied on.

Perry v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-08(c)(3)

Agency regulations lay out a number of factors that an ALJ must consider when evaluating a claimant’ s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). As such, an ALJ is not required to go factor by factor through the evidence, discussing how the evidence relates to each factor. Instead, the ALJ need only set forth the specific evidence on which he relied in evaluating Plaintiff's symptoms. ... Because the ALJ did that here, this court affirms the Commissioner’s decision.

An ALJ need not discuss every Polaski factor so long as the decision acknowledges and considers the factors before discounting subjective complaints.

Lentz v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-20

But the ALJ is “not required to discuss each Polaski factor so long as [she] acknowledges and considers the factors before discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints.” Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

An ALJ need discuss only the symptom factors pertinent to the evidence, but must give specific, supported, and clearly articulated reasons for the weight assigned to symptoms.

Fisher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20(c)(3)

The ALJ need only discuss those factors that are pertinent based upon the evidence in the record. Id. The ALJ's discussion of the applicable factors “must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual's symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual's symptoms.” Id. at *10.

An ALJ need discuss only pertinent symptom factors but must provide specific, supported, and clearly articulated reasons for the weight assigned to symptoms.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20(c)(3)

The ALJ need only discuss those factors that are pertinent based upon the evidence in the record. Id. The ALJ's discussion of the applicable factors “must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual's symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual's symptoms.” Id. at *10.

An ALJ need only consider the § 404.1529(c)(3) factors pertinent to the record and may consider other relevant factors.

Valerio v. Commissioner Of Social Security · filed 2022-09-23(c)(3)

The Social Security regulations identify a non-exclusive list of factors the ALJ may consider to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms, including the claimant’s daily activities; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain or other symptoms; and any other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms produced by medically determinable impairments. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7–8 (Oct. 25, 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3)). The ALJ need only consider those factors pertinent to the evidence in the record and may also consider other factors as relevant. Id.

On remand, the ALJ must specifically address all relevant § 404.1529(c)(3) factors and make detailed findings about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of physical and psychological symptoms.

Espinal v. Social Security · filed 2022-09-23(c)(3)

However, the Court directs the ALJ, when discussing Plaintiff’s credibility on remand, to: (1) specifically address all the relevant factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); and (2) make more detailed findings concerning Plaintiff’s credibility and Plaintiff’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms, both physical and psychological. See Valet v. Astrue, No. 10-CV-3282, 2012 WL 194970, at *22 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2012) (remanding where ALJ “failed to address all of the factors” in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)).

An ALJ need discuss only symptom factors pertinent to the record but must give specific, supported, and clearly articulated reasons for the weight assigned to symptoms.

Salas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-27(c)(3)

The ALJ need only discuss those factors that are pertinent based upon the evidence in the record. Id. The ALJ's discussion of the applicable factors “must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual's symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual's symptoms.” Id. at *10.

An ALJ need not discuss each symptom factor so long as the decision acknowledges and considers the factors before discounting subjective complaints.

Pratt v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

However, “[t]he ALJ is not required to discuss each Polaski factor as long as ‘he [or she] acknowledges and considers the factors before discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints.’” Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Moore, 572 F.3d at 524).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a methodical discussion of every symptom factor if the decision shows that the ALJ acknowledged and considered the factors before discounting subjective complaints.

Turner v. Saul · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

The Eighth Circuit has held that an ALJ is not required to discuss each Polaski factor methodically. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 791 (8th Cir.2005); Brown v. Chater, 87 F.3d 963, 966 (8th Cir. 1996). The ALJ’s analysis will be accepted as long as the opinion reflects acknowledgment and consideration of the factors before discounting the claimant’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a rigid factor-by-factor recital when the decision is specific enough to show that the regulatory factors and the record as a whole were considered.

Nero v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

The ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s symptoms under SSR 16-3p, and remand is not required on this issue. Although not in a formalistic fashion, the ALJ’s decision shows that he properly considered the record as a whole, and it is sufficiently specific to show that the regulatory factors were considered.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require an ALJ to analyze all seven symptom factors, but the decision should show that the ALJ considered the relevant evidence.

Preston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-12(c)(3)

Although an ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors, he should show that he considered the relevant evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes daily activities one of several symptom-evaluation factors but does not require an ALJ to explicitly discuss every factor in the decision.

Paulino v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-14(c)(3)

As an initial matter, although the Regulations include a claimant’s daily activities as one of a number of factors for an ALJ to consider in assessing the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3), an ALJ need not explicitly discuss all of these factors in her decision.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of all evidence and relevant symptom factors but does not require discussion of every piece of evidence.

Pollinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-03(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4)

Nonetheless, “an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, so long as the ALJ’s decision is not a broad rejection and there is enough for us to conclude that the ALJ considered the medical condition as a whole.” ... Here, the ALJ preliminarily made clear that she conducted her subjective symptom analysis in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formal factor-by-factor recital if the ALJ identifies the specific evidence supporting the symptom findings.

Nino v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-12-22(c)(3)

The ALJ “need not make a ... ‘formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence,’ ” so long as she sets forth the specific evidence she relies on to support her findings.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (4) require discussion only of pertinent symptom factors.

ANDERSON v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-01-25(c)(3), (4)

The ALJ need only "discuss the factors pertinent to the evidence of record." SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8.

Section 404.1529 does not require explicit discussion of every statement if the record permits the court to discern the ALJ’s rationale.

Paniagua v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-17(c)(2)

Furthermore, “an ALJ is not required to explicitly address each and every statement made in the record that might implicate his evaluation of the claimant’s credibility as long as the evidence of record permits the court to glean the rationale of an ALJ’s decision.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require methodical discussion of every factor when the ALJ acknowledges and examines them before discounting allegations.

Furgerson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective allegations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider conflicts with medical evidence, work history, treatment efforts, hearing observations, and daily activities without discussing every factor.

Potokar v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

An ALJ need not discuss every single factor in her evaluation of self-described symptoms and limitations, but merely what was found to be probative. ... However, despite differing interpretations of the evidence which may have been possible, the ALJ’s thorough discussion and conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the listed symptom factors but not a formal factor-by-factor discussion.

Ewers v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

Although an ALJ is obligated under the governing regulations to consider specific factors in assessing an individual’s subjective symptom statements and pain testimony, the ALJ is not required to discuss each of these factors specifically in assessing the individual’s alleged disability. ... In doing so, the ALJ satisfied his regulatory obligations, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that T.E.’s “reported limitations” were inconsistent with medical and other evidence (A.R. at 19).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires meaningful consideration of the symptom factors; a vague reference to “other evidence” beyond medical records does not support discounting subjective complaints.

Williams v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-05-17(c)(3)

In the present action, the ALJ did not perform a full consideration of the Polaski factors. ... Although the ALJ referenced “other evidence,” she did not provide what that “other evidence” was, apart from Plaintiff’s medical records. Based upon this review, the Court finds the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. ... Accordingly, because the ALJ provided an insufficient basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, this case must be reversed and remanded.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of its symptom factors, but the decision need not discuss and cite every possible factor if the analysis is otherwise sufficiently specific.

Smith v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-05-17(c)(3)

The ALJ also considers the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. sections 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), including: ... Id. at *7–8 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3)). The decision need not contain discussion and citations as to every possible factor to be sufficiently specific. ... The Court finds that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Plaintiff’s symptoms and that his determination that Plaintiff’s statements regarding her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the symptom factors but not to discuss each one expressly; the decision need only evaluate factors relevant to the claimed intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

(SS) White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-13(c)(3)

The factors in SSR 16-3p are a recitation of the factors set forth in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). ... The regulations state only that the ALJ will consider these factors and not that the ALJ is required to specifically discuss each of these factors in the opinion. ... Similarly, SSR 16-3p does not require the ALJ to discuss expressly each of these factors. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8 (The ALJ need only evaluate “the factors that are relevant to assessing the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the [claimant’s] symptoms.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require separate analysis of all seven symptom factors, but the ALJ must demonstrate consideration of the relevant evidence and the entire record.

Skaggs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-05(c)(3)

In performing this assessment, the ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors but must still show that he considered the relevant evidence. ... Indeed, the ALJ’s assessment of an individual’s subjective complaints and limitations must be supported by substantial evidence and be based on a consideration of the entire record. ... In sum, the ALJ relied upon substantial evidence and directly applied many of the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) factors for evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require discussion and citation for every symptom factor when the ALJ cites substantial, legitimate evidence and otherwise sufficiently explains the decision.

Ison v. SSA · filed 2023-07-07(c)(3)

Relevant factors the ALJ should consider include: (1) the claimant’s “daily activities”; (2) the “location, duration, frequency and intensity” of her pain; (3) “precipitating and aggravating factors”; (4) the “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” she takes to alleviate her pain; (5) “[t]reatment other than medication”; (6) any measures she uses to relieve her pain; and (7) other factors concerning her “functional limitations and restrictions due to pain.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... But “[t]he ALJ’s decision need not contain discussion and citations as to every possible factor to be sufficiently specific.” ... In this case, the ALJ properly addressed Ison’s subjective complaints and otherwise based her RFC finding on substantial evidence, including examination records, office treatment notes, and progress notes.

Section 404.1529(c)’s symptom factors are assessed from a common-sense reading of the decision as a whole; treatment, medications, and relief measures may be adequately considered throughout the opinion rather than in a single factor-by-factor section.

Cavin v. O'Malley · filed 2023-07-17(c)

Because the ALJ sufficiently explained and supported his subjective symptom assessment, the record does not compel reversal. In evaluating subjective allegations, an ALJ assesses the objective medical evidence and a number of other factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, effectiveness and side effects of any medication, treatment, other methods to alleviate symptoms, and factors that precipitate and aggravate symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... But “[t]he court applies a common-sense reading to the entirety of an ALJ’s decision.” ... When the ALJ’s decision is read as a whole, it is clear that the ALJ considered Brian’s medications, various forms of treatment, and other methods to alleviate his symptom.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires analysis only of symptom factors germane to the alleged symptoms, with enough assessment to show that all relevant evidence was considered.

Adams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-21(c)(3)

At the second step, the ALJ considers all relevant evidence, including a claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief from pain or other symptoms; any measures other than treatment an individual uses or used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and any other factor concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain and other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); see also SSR 16-3p, at *7-8. The ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors, only those that are germane to the alleged symptoms. ... “The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors identified in the regulation but should provide enough assessment to assure a reviewing court that he or she considered all relevant evidence.”

Section 404.1529 does not require an ALJ to cite Polaski or discuss each symptom factor in depth when the decision acknowledges the governing requirements and actually considers the relevant factors.

Krieg v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-27

Although the ALJ did not cite specifically to Polaski, he affirmatively stated in his decision that he considered all of Plaintiff’s symptoms based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929 and Social Security Ruling 16-3p. ... The adjudicator is “not required to discuss each Polaski factor as long as ‘[he] acknowledges and considers the factors before discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints.’” ... In formulating the RFC, the ALJ explicitly considered the objective medical evidence of record, including his treatment and progress with symptoms, the wide variety of activities of daily living plaintiff was able to perform, his functional limitations, temporary restrictions due to his bicep tear, conservative treatment with cortisone injections, and use of anti-vertigo medication. ... Consequently, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s pain.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) do not require explicit discussion of every symptom factor when the decision identifies inconsistencies and permits review of the claimant’s condition as a whole.

Griffis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)-(4)

The regulations do not require the agency to discuss every factor. ... The ALJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. ... The ALJ discussed treatment notes and Griffis’s reported symptoms and highlighted the inconsistencies. ... He also partially credited Griffis’s subjective complaints by limiting her to light work with additional limitations, including limitations caused by taking Gabapentin. ... The ALJ explicitly discussed some factors and had no obligation to explicitly discuss all of them.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of relevant symptom factors but does not require the ALJ to cite or discuss every factor.

Brunke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-10(c)(3)

At the same time, the ALJ is not required to cite or discuss every factor used to evaluate the consistency of a plaintiff’s description of symptoms with the record evidence. ... The Court finds no error with the ALJ’s assessment of plaintiff’s symptoms. The ALJ considered plaintiff’s testimony about his alleged limitations.

A formal factor-by-factor recitation is unnecessary when the ALJ identifies the specific evidence relied upon and the decision shows consideration of the relevant symptom factors.

Short · filed 2025-11-13(c)(3)

Although the ALJ did not provide a “formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence,” such analysis is not required when, like here, the ALJ “sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the claimant’s” symptoms.

An ALJ need not expressly discuss every § 404.1529(c)(3) factor but must show that the relevant factors were considered.

Barga · filed 2026-01-28(c)(3)

In performing this assessment, the ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors but must still show that he considered the relevant evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to assess all symptoms attributable to a severe impairment and explain whether their consistency with the evidence warrants RFC limitations, even when the symptoms are not established as a separate medically determinable impairment.

Cunningham v. Saul · filed 2021-06-16(a)

Again, the Commissioner’s undeveloped arguments are without merit. As discussed above, the state agency physicians found that Plaintiff’s low BMI were a symptom of her psychiatric issues. The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s psychiatric issues were severe impairments. As such, the ALJ was required to assess all of Plaintiff’s symptoms relating to her severe impairments and the extent to which those symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and provide a reasoned evaluation about whether Plaintiff’s eating issues did or did not require any accommodation within the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Leslie T. v. Saul, No. 419CV00113SEBDML, 2020 WL 6586658, at *6 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2020), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Thomas v. Saul, No. 419CV00113SEBDML, 2020 WL 6583088 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2020). By not independently evaluating Plaintiff’s eating issues, the ALJ glossed over the evidence relating to her eating issues without further explanation as to why they did not impact Plaintiff’s limitations. Plaintiff clearly established that she had a low BMI throughout the record along with an inability to digest medication, weakness, vomiting, and dizziness. Yet, the ALJ never addresses this evidence head on to explain why it would not affect Plaintiff’s limitations.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s symptoms when determining residual functional capacity but requires inclusion only of restrictions consistent with the record evidence.

Briegel v. Saul · filed 2021-07-08

Although the ALJ must consider all of Plaintiff’s symptoms when making her RFC determination, the ALJ is only required to include restrictions consistent with the evidence in the record in the RFC. (Tr. 15); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929. Here, Plaintiff’s clinical examinations routinely documented his full cognition, good hygiene, goal directed thought content, cooperative behavior, appropriate mood with congruent affect, normal speech, intact memory, and unimpaired attention and concentration. (Tr. 14, 930, 960, 1300, 1305, 1322, 1345, 1349, 1361, 1410, 1430, 1478-80, 1495-97, 1555, 1572, 1587, 1616, 1692, 1698-99, 1702, 1704, 1706, 1708, 1710, 1860, 1863, 1866, 2081-82.) His treatment notes also regularly stated that his alleged mental impairments were well controlled with medication. (Tr. 14, 1698, 1702, 1704, 1706, 1708, 1710.) They also showed no evidence that he required aggressive mental health treatment, hospitalization, or emergency intervention due to any psychological symptoms. (Tr. 14, 1966.) Instead, Plaintiff’s treatment records revealed routine and conservative treatment, consisting of medication management. (Id.) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s reported activities of daily living documented his ability to care for himself, perform household chores, drive, manage finances, interact with others, read, write, play computer games, put together puzzles, and shop in stores. (Tr. 13, 250-53, 262, 276, 1319, 1598, 1813.) Thus, by not including any mental restrictions in the RFC, the ALJ implicitly found that Plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments caused no functional limitations, and this finding aligned with the evidence of record discussed above. (Tr. 15); see Depover, 349 F.3d at 567.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which they are reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Castro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-29(a)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ considers all symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which those symptoms are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ determining RFC to consider all symptoms and both objective and other evidence, including treatment, daily activities, work efforts, and statements from the claimant and medical sources.

GEPNER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-29

[C]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. By objective medical evidence, we mean medical signs and laboratory findings . . . . By other evidence, we mean . . . statements or reports from you, your treating or nontreating source, and others about your medical history, diagnosis, prescribed treatment, daily activities, efforts to work, and any other evidence showing how your impairment(s) and any related symptoms affect your ability to work. . . .

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of all evidence bearing on an impairment's total limiting effects, including objective evidence, daily activities, aggravating factors, and treatment.

Zalk-Smith v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2021-09-30(c)

In assessing the total limiting effects of an impairment, the ALJ was required to consider all of the evidence, including the objective medical evidence, Ms. Zalk-Smith’s activities of daily living, precipitating and aggravating factors, and treatment received for an impairment. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). The Court agrees with Ms. Zalk-Smith that the ALJ committed harmful error by failing to adequately consider Ms. Zalk-Smith’s alleged functional limitations related to her CTS impairment when the ALJ formulated the RFC.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms, including pain, and whether they are reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence such as medical sources, history, and treatment statements.

Sullivan, III v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-14(a)-(c)

Adjudicators, as the regulations dictate (i.e., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529), are to consider all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all available evidence, including medical history, signs, laboratory findings, and statements about functional effects, while providing that symptom statements alone do not establish disability.

Layman v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-03(a)-(c)

The ALJ considers a claimant’s statement about symptoms, and any description by medical sources or nonmedical sources about how the symptoms affect activities of daily living and the ability to work. However, statements about symptoms alone will not establish disability.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to consider all symptoms and the extent to which they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Vasquez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-11(a)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a) and 416.929(a), the ALJ is tasked with considering all the claimant’s symptoms and the “extent to which [those] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of all symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which they are reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Whiteford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(a)

Adjudicators, as the regulations dictate (i.e., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529), are to consider all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider all symptoms and medical evidence, and remand is warranted when a relevant medical exhibit is summarily dismissed without review or discussion.

SHANNON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-12

Here, the ALJ accurately set out what basic work activities are and then specifically stated that he had considered all symptoms and medical evidence based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p. Tr. 18. In its review of the record evidence the Court concurs with the ALJ’s statement except as to Exhibit 1F. This exhibit is extensive, contains relevant medical evidence, but was summarily dismissed by the ALJ without review or discussion.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of all statements about symptoms and all available evidence, including medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how symptoms affect daily activities and work.

Ball v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-30(a)

see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“We will consider all of you statements about your symptoms, such as pain, and any description your medica sources or nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect you activities of daily living and your ability to work. ... In evaluating the intensity an persistence of your symptoms, including pain, we will consider all of the availabl evidence, including your medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, an statements about how your symptoms affect you.”). ... Accordingly, the ALJ had substantia evidence to discount portions of plaintiffs testimony.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the record to show that the ALJ considered every relevant statement about how symptoms affect daily activities and work, though cumulative or irrelevant statements need not be discussed.

Williams v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-01(a)

The ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence, but the “record must demonstrate that the ALJ considered all of the evidence.” Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“We will consider all of your statements about your symptoms, such as pain, and any description your medical sources or nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect your activities of daily living and your ability to work.” (emphasis added)). While the ALJ does not have to discuss all the claimant’s statements, especially when they are cumulative or irrelevant, the ALJ must demonstrate that she considered all the relevant statements. The ALJ can either address the allegations and find them not supported by the record, or the ALJ can accept the allegations and incorporate them into the RFC. Here, the ALJ did neither. ... This constitutes error.

An ALJ determining disability must consider all symptoms and the extent to which they reasonably accord with objective medical and other evidence.

Dickmann v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-13(a)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider all symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which those symptoms are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s reported symptoms even when objective medical evidence does not substantiate their alleged degree, and the ALJ cannot ignore an entire line of such reports.

ABBOTT v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-09-29(c)(2)

Regardless of any specific objective medical evidence, the ALJ was required to consider January's frequent reports of radicular/neurological symptoms, including pain radiating to the limbs, weakness in the limbs, and numbness.

Section 404.1529(c) requires specific reasons for evaluating a claimant’s symptoms collectively, not separate reasons addressing every individual symptom.

Endsley v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-03-27(c)

The court notes the SSR does not require the ALJ to provide specific reasons for the weight given to the individual symptoms but to the individual’s symptoms—the symptoms of the individual. ... Thus, while there may not be evidence directly relating to each individual symptom alleged, when all the symptoms are considered in relation to their consistency with all the evidence an appropriate evaluation of the symptoms may be made.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of all reported symptoms and the extent to which they are reasonably consistent with objective and other evidence.

PERKINS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2023-03-29(a)

The Administration’s regulations represent that Defendant will consider all the symptoms, including pain, reported by the claimant, and the extent to which the symptoms “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Subsection (a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptom testimony, including statements about pain and workplace limitations.

Gilkey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-21(a)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptom testimony, including statements regarding pain and workplace limitations. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Subsection (a) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider all symptoms and the extent to which they are consistent with objective and other evidence.

Gillhoolley v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-31(a)

At this intermediate step, the ALJ considers all of the claimant’s symptoms and “the extent to which [they] can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s statements about symptoms, including testimony about limitations from an ankle impairment.

Gonzalez v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-12-08(a)

Nonetheless, in assessing a claimant’s testimony, an ALJ must consider “all of the individual’s symptoms.” See SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2 (emphasis added); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a) (2017), 416.929(a) (2017) (“We will consider all of your statements about your symptoms[.]”) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1529 requires the Commissioner to consider all available evidence, including medical history, when evaluating symptoms.

Hatfield v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-09-29

Second, the ALJ impermissibly cherry-picked evidence from Dr. Delay’s treatment notes. ... The Commissioner must "consider all of the available evidence, including [Plaintiff's] medical history." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(vii) permits consideration of a claimant's work history when assessing the functional limits of symptoms that existed in similar form before and after the alleged disability onset date.

Krainock v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-10(c)(3)(vii)

Plaintiff’s work history is a relevant factor for consideration by the ALJ regarding Plaintiff’s functional limitations given the similar mental health symptoms she experienced before and after her proposed disability onset date. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(vii); see also Ahearn v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2021).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of a claimant’s prior work record, and a poor or intermittent history suggesting nonmedical reasons for unemployment may undermine allegations of disabling symptoms.

Sinner v. Saul · filed 2021-06-23(c)(3)

Evidence of a poor work history that suggests a claimant is not motivated to work is a permissible reason to discredit a claimant’s testimony that she is unable to work. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 959; SSR 96-7 (factors to consider in evaluating credibility include “prior work record and efforts to work”); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (work record can be considered in assessing credibility); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 (same). ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably found Plaintiff’s poor work history was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegation of disabling limitations beginning at the alleged onset date. This was a clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence, to reject Plaintiff’s symptom claims.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence, so substantial work history may lend weight to the claimant’s functional self-assessment without overcoming contrary evidence.

PERSON v. SAUL · filed 2021-08-04(c)(3)

I disagree that according additional credence based on a substantial work history is necessarily a reflection of character; it could also simply reflect a judgment that extensive work experience informs a claimant’s own assessment of the functional abilities necessary for full-time work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (requiring ALJs to consider a claimant’s “prior work record” when evaluating symptoms’ intensity and persistence). Even if Person’s allegations are given additional weight because of his strong work history, however, they cannot overcome the evidence, which shows that he was alleging an inability to work based on his medical condition even while walking three miles per day five days per week. R. at 442 (noting that Person stopped being able to walk three miles per day on December 20, 2018, almost a month after he filed for benefits).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of prior work history but not a separate written analysis of that factor when the ALJ invokes the regulatory framework and specifies reasons for the symptom determination.

Polo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-03(c)(3)

The ALJ stated in his written decision that in making his credibility finding, he considered “all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p.” (AR at 20.) “[A] full-blown written analysis of all the regulatory factors” by the ALJ is not required. Hoffman v. Berryhill, Case No.: 16-cv-1976-JM-AGS, 2017 WL 3641881, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017). “[T]he regulations and rulings contain no requirement that each and every factor be specifically analyzed in an ALJ’s decision.” Yantos v. Berryhill, Case No.: 15cv02733 JAH-BGS, 2018 WL 899126, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and SSR 96-2p). The ALJ specifically stated in his decision that he considered factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and specified reasons for his credibility determination, (see AR at 20, 22); as such, the ALJ was not required to specifically analyze Plaintiff’s work history.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of evidence about a claimant’s prior work record but does not require an ALJ to treat a strong work history as a favorable factor in evaluating symptoms.

Basile v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-03(c)(3)

At the hearing, the ALJ asked Plaintiff extensively about his work history. (Tr. 36-41). The ALJ asked about the job requirements for his position as jewelry salesman, assistant store manager, and counter manager. (Tr. 36-41). The ALJ was therefore aware of Plaintiff’s work history. While Plaintiff cites 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), and SSRs 96-8p3 and 16-3p, claiming these regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s willingness to work as part of assessing subjective symptoms, these provisions do not require the ALJ to consider work history as a favorable factor. See 20 C.F.R. § 1529(c)(3) (“We will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record, your statements about your symptoms, evidence submitted by your medical sources, and observations by our employees and other persons.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s prior work record when assessing subjective symptom complaints.

Butler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-29(c)(3)

The Court finds that the ALJ’s review of the Plaintiff’s employment background was not improper. To begin, the ALJ is entitled to consider a claimant’s work history when assessing the credibility of his reported symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating symptoms but does not require the written decision to discuss that work history expressly.

Indvick v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-21(c)(3)

Although these regulations require the ALJ to consider a broad spectrum of evidence, including a claimant’s prior work record, most district courts have held that an ALJ is not required to specifically discuss a claimant’s work history when ... determining credibility. ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by not acknowledging Plaintiff’s work history as part of his credibility determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) instructs an ALJ to consider prior work history when evaluating symptoms, but does not require specific reference to every item of evidence.

Bailey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-02-16(c)(3)

It is true that the ALJ did not mention Bailey’s work history, although the regulations instruct ALJs to “consider all of the evidence presented, including information about [the claimant’s] prior work record” when evaluating symptoms and related testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)–(3) requires subjective complaints to be assessed in the context of the entire record rather than work history alone and permits their consistency with other evidence to be weighed.

Hakes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-14(c)(1)–(3)

However, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints in the context of the entire record, not just his work history. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (c)(1)-(2); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304. While an ALJ must take Plaintiff’s claims into account, he need not accept subjective complaints without question. See Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010). Rather, the ALJ exercises discretion in weighing the consistency of Plaintiff's allegations in light of the other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of prior work history but treats it as only one factor in evaluating symptoms.

Boutwell v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-04-27(c)(3)

When evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the Social Security Regulations do provide that “all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources” will be considered, “including information about your prior work record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). However, a claimant’s work history is only one factor to consider when evaluating the alleged symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of prior part-time work, activities, and other functional factors when evaluating symptoms.

Lubonski v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-05-25(c)(3)

But Ms. Lubonski provides no authority for this proposition, and the court finds that the ALJ properly considered Ms. Lubonski’s prior part-time work in accordance with the Regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of work history but not express written discussion of it.

Stout v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-13(c)(3)

Put another way, the ALJ was required to consider all of the evidence presented, including Plaintiff’s work history, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), however, he was not required to expressly discuss it.

An ALJ must consider the claimant’s prior work record as part of the symptom evidence but need not expressly discuss work history in the decision.

Nahouraii v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of SSA · filed 2022-07-22(c)(3)

Finally, Nahouraii argues that the ALJ was required to discuss Nahouraii’s strong work history but failed to do so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) states that an ALJ will “consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record” but does not require an ALJ to include a discussion related to work history.

Although work history is among the Section 404.1529(c)(3) symptom-evaluation considerations, an ALJ need not expressly discuss it in the decision.

George v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-27(c)(3)

Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Court notes that the ALJ was under no obligation to explicitly address plaintiff’s work history in his assessment of the consistency of plaintiff’s symptoms with the record. While a claimant’s work history is part of the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) analysis, it need not be articulated by the ALJ in his decision.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the claimant’s prior work record but does not prescribe how the ALJ must communicate that consideration.

GWARA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-08-25(c)(3)

Nowhere in these two authorities cited by Plaintiff does it prescribe a manner in which an ALJ must communicate his consideration of a claimant’s prior work history in an opinion.

A claimant’s prior work record is one factor in symptom evaluation, but § 404.1529(c)(3) does not require controlling weight or extended discussion even for a lengthy work history.

Foster v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-14(c)(3)

But there is no requirement in the law or regulations that an ALJ give controlling weight to the testimony of claimants with lengthy work histories. The regulations do provide that a claimant’s prior work record is one of many factors that an ALJ may consider in evaluating the claimant’s symptoms and symptom-related functional limitations.3 Here, the ALJ’s written decision acknowledged that Plaintiff had a lengthy work history in the insurance industry. The ALJ’s failure to further discuss Plaintiff’s work history was not reversible error.

An ALJ must consider the claimant’s prior work record when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence but need not expressly discuss work history.

Hatfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-21(c)(3)

The regulations provide that in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, “[w]e will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... In this regard, an ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss a claimant’s work history.

An ALJ must consider prior work history when evaluating symptoms but need not expressly discuss the entire work history.

Gelin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(c)(3)

Although an ALJ is “required to consider all of the evidence presented, including Plaintiff’s work history,” the ALJ is “not required to expressly discuss it.” Chestang v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:21-cv-482-MRM, 2022 WL 4354849, at *14 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2022) (unpublished) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Here, the ALJ did consider Plaintiff’s allegation that she stopped working because of “pain in her feet and fingers.” Tr. at 21. The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s past relevant work, finding that it was “performed long enough to achieve average performance, and performed within the relevant time period.” Tr. at 24. While the ALJ did not explicitly discuss Plaintiff’s entire work history in the context of addressing her subjective complaints, under the circumstances, the ALJ did not reversibly err.

An ALJ must consider prior work history as part of the evidence but need not expressly discuss the entire history in the symptom analysis.

Babcock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(c)(3)

Although an ALJ is “required to consider all of the evidence presented, including Plaintiff’s work history,” the ALJ is “not required to expressly discuss it.” Chestang v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:21-cv-482-MRM, 2022 WL 4354849, at *14 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2022) (unpublished) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Here, the ALJ did consider Plaintiff’s past relevant work, noting four different jobs that Plaintiff had performed for sufficient time during the relevant period to qualify. Tr. at 22-24. While the ALJ did not explicitly discuss Plaintiff’s entire work history in the context of addressing her subjective complaints, under the circumstances, the ALJ did not reversibly err.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of prior work history but does not require an ALJ to mechanically discuss every regulatory factor in the written decision.

Kovaleff v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-08(c)(3)

It is true that Social Security Administration regulations state that the ALJ “will consider all of the evidence present, including information about your prior work record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has said that the “ALJ is not required to mechanically follow every guiding regulatory factor in articulating reasons for denying claims or weighing credibility.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require separate discussion of every prior job when the ALJ considers the claimant’s work history and does not use it to discount symptom statements.

Holden v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-23(c)(3)

The Court finds that the ALJ did not err in ... failing to discuss Plaintiff’s military work history.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of prior work history but does not require an ALJ to discuss that history explicitly in the symptom analysis.

Millard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

When an ALJ assesses a claimant’s assertion that his symptoms are of disabling severity, the ALJ must consider “all of the evidence presented,” including information about a claimant’s prior work record, the claimant’s own statements about his or her symptoms, evidence submitted by medical sources, and “observations by our employees and other persons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). However, while the ALJ is directed to consider information about a claimant’s prior work record, the ALJ is “not required to explicitly discuss [a claimant’s] work history when assessing his credibility.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of prior work history, but the record may demonstrate that consideration even when the ALJ does not discuss it expressly in the symptom analysis.

Brown v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

The Court agrees with Brown that the ALJ did not discuss Brown’s prior work record in her evaluation of his credibility. ... The ALJ elicited testimony from Brown during the administrative hearing as to his work history (R. 42-45), the physical demands of each position (id.), and why he stopped working (R. 46). ... Thus, the Court finds no error in this or any other aspect of the ALJ’s symptom or credibility analysis.

A claimant’s prior work record must be considered as part of the overall symptom evaluation, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss work history.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(c)(3)

But while the plaintiff’s work history must be considered as part of the ALJ’s broader view of the record in evaluating his or her symptoms, see, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (“We will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record . . . .”), there is no error in an ALJ’s failure to explicitly discuss the plaintiff’s work history in the ALJ’s evaluation of the plaintiff’s symptoms.

An ALJ must consider the claimant’s prior work record with all other evidence but need not provide a full written analysis of every regulatory factor.

Desrosiers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-30(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to engage in “a full-blown written analysis of all the regulatory factors.”

An ALJ must consider prior work history when evaluating symptom severity but need not explicitly discuss it in the written decision.

Smith v. Commissioner for Social Security · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)

Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has held that ALJs are “not required to explicitly discuss [a claimant’s] work history when assessing his credibility.” Dutkiewicz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 663 F. App’x 430, 433 (6th Cir. 2016) (emphasis added). Thus, the ALJ did not err by declining to discuss Plaintiff’s work history.

Although section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of a claimant’s prior work record, work that ended because of the alleged symptoms does not undermine the claimant’s testimony, especially when the job’s sitting and standing demands remain undeveloped.

Higgins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-17(c)

Although the ALJ could consider plaintiff’s “prior work record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), this particular work record does not undermine plaintiff’s testimony. First, plaintiff left the position after his symptoms prohibited him from performing the job. AR 190. Such a work history does not undermine plaintiff’s allegations of symptoms prohibiting employment. See Ligenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1038 (9th Cir. 2007). Second, without further development of the record, it is unclear whether this work history conflicts with plaintiff’s allegations of difficulty sitting without lying down.

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of a poor or sporadic work history and a nonmedical reason for stopping work when evaluating whether symptom testimony credibly explains an inability to work.

(SS) Alfaro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-20

Regardless, evidence of a poor work history that suggests a claimant is not motivated to work is a permissible reason to discredit a claimant’s testimony that he is unable to work. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 959; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 (prior work record can be considered in assessing credibility). In addition, the ALJ may consider that a claimant stopped working for reasons unrelated to the allegedly disabling condition when weighing the Plaintiff's symptom reports. Bruton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 2001).

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of all relevant evidence and permits work history to inform symptom credibility, but an ALJ need not explicitly discuss uninterrupted employment when other record evidence adequately explains the finding.

HANCZAR-SIMONKA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-12-27(c)

In making a credibility determination, the ALJ should consider all relevant evidence in the case record. See id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). While this can include a claimant’s work history, an ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss a claimant’s years of uninterrupted employment.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to rely on a claimant's testimony about the ability to perform past work when evaluating alleged symptom limitations.

Denney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-05(c)

In particular, the ALJ pointed to Plaintiff’s testimony about his ability to perform past work (AR 28), which itself serves as an adequate reason to reject Plaintiff’s testimony, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require mechanical discussion of every factor or explicit recitation of the full work history when activities, objective evidence, and testimony are otherwise considered.

Arellano v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-22(c)(3)

Although the regulations direct an ALJ to consider "information about [a claimant's] prior work record," 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), there is no binding authority in the Fifth Circuit requiring an ALJ to specifically reference the full extent of a claimant's length work history in determining an appropriate RFC when activities of daily living and objective medical evidence are also considered.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s prior work record with other record evidence when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Lucas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-27(c)(1)-(3)

Plaintiff is also plainly incorrect that work history is not among the considerations relevant to “intensity and persistence of symptoms” listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529—it expressly states “information about your prior work record” will be considered among other evidence in the record. Id. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is without merit, and the Court adopts the conclusion and analysis set forth in the R&R.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider all evidence, including the claimant’s prior work record.

Anderson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-29(c)(3)

To start, the ALJ noted that plaintiff had engaged in substantial gainful activity during the adjudicative period. Tr. 438. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3) (ALJ’s will consider all evidence of prior work record); see also Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1156 (9th Cir. 2020) (an ALJ may consider any work activity when determining whether a claimant is disabled). Indeed, plaintiff had seventeen months of earning above substantial gainful activity levels (SGA). Tr. 717-19; 726. At his 2022 hearing, plaintiff testified he was working at a medical marijuana facility. Tr. 459. Plaintiff’s work history is substantial evidence of his ability to work, and the ALJ did not err in concluding as such.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating symptoms.

Stolte v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

Given that Dr. Dawood specifically opined the stated limitations were applicable from March 5, 2013 through the date of the opinion, Tr. at 2275, the ALJ’s observation about Plaintiff’s ability to work some of that time, together with the ALJ’s other findings, was reasonable and indicative that the opinion was not bolstered by the evidence. See, e.g., Walker, 987 F.3d at 1338; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (allowing consideration of “information about your prior work record”).

A claimant’s prior work record is relevant under Section 404.1529(c)(3), but an ALJ need not discuss it alongside the symptom findings when the decision shows that it was considered as part of the broader record.

MAZANETZ v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-11-15(c)(3)

The Court also acknowledged the relevancy of a claimant’s “prior work record” in the evaluation of the claimant’s alleged symptoms and limitations. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 409 (3d Cir. 1979); Taybron v. Harris, 667 F.2d 412, 415 n.6 (3d Cir. 1981); Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210, 217 (3d Cir. 1984)). ... Though the ALJ did not concurrently address Plaintiff’s substantial work history, it was part of his larger consideration of the record, which included a determination of the date Plaintiff last met the insured status requirements of the Act (R. 17) and consideration of Plaintiff’s past relevant work as a “Nurse Case Manager . . . Registered Nurse . . . and Nurse Supervisor.” (R. 26).

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of symptom characteristics, triggers, medication, treatment, relief measures, daily activities, and functional restrictions, but does not require an ALJ to explicitly discuss work history in the symptom evaluation.

Tracy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-25(c)

Although the regulations require an ALJ to consider all record evidence—including prior work history—when formulating the RFC, nothing requires an ALJ to explicitly discuss that work history as part of a subjective-symptom evaluation.

A lengthy work history is one factor in symptom evaluation but does not automatically entitle a claimant to credibility or require the ALJ to give that history special weight.

Crawford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion then, the ALJ was not required to give any special weight or consideration to Plaintiff’s lengthy work history as evidence of his credibility.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating symptoms; acknowledging that work can satisfy the requirement.

McCoy v. Saul · filed 2020-06-22(c)(3)

Further, the ALJ did acknowledge McCoy’s prior work. Tr. 37 (“The undersigned finds the evidence shows the claimant had a demanding job, doing medium to heavy, skilled tasks that often required working 12-hour days.”) This is sufficient to meet the ALJ’s obligations under the regulations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s prior work record, but does not require discussion of work history that has not been shown to be significant or probative.

(SS) Sexton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-10(c)(3)

True, social security regulations require an ALJ to consider “all of the evidence presented, including information about [a claimant’s] prior work record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). However, an “ALJ is not required to discuss evidence that is neither significant nor probative.” ... Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that the ALJ was required to discuss it.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s prior work record, including evidence of workplace limitations, when assessing residual functional capacity.

SCHEID v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-10-13(c)(3)

To determine a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ is required to consider all of the relevant evidence presented, including information about the claimant’s “prior work record.” ... The ALJ did not include any information regarding Mr. Scheid’s previous workplace limitations in his findings of fact, nor did he give a reason for excluding this evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned to subjective symptom statements so that the claimant and reviewing courts can understand the finding.

Young · filed 2026-03-25(c)

While there is no formulaic requirement for analysis that an ALJ must include in such decisions, credibility findings should be explained to permit meaningful review. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s analysis provides no basis for meaningful review.

Subsection 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to assess conflicts between symptom statements and the rest of the evidence and explain which symptoms were found inconsistent and how that evaluation led to the RFC conclusions.

Hood · filed 2026-03-18(c)(4)

The ALJ must consider at the second step “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... The ALJ must explain which of the claimant’s alleged symptoms he considered “consistent or inconsistent with the evidence in [the] record and how [his] evaluation of the individual’s symptoms led to [his] conclusions. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8. ... The ALJ neither included restrictions in the RFC assessment that would reasonably address Plaintiff’s allegations of incontinence, nor explained how the evidence failed to support additional restrictions in the RFC assessment to address her incontinence.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) does not require a one-on-one comparison of competing evidence when the ALJ’s detailed discussion of the entire record adequately explains why the claimant’s allegations were discounted.

GAUTAM · filed 2026-02-18(c)(4)

Plaintiff’s argument in this regard appears to be searching for a direct comparison between Dr. Guie and N.P. Wells’ findings and opinions – i.e., some sort of a one-on-one explanation – which is not required by law.

Subsection 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to examine inconsistencies and conflicts between symptom statements and the full record and to explain why particular statements are inconsistent; objective evidence is not required to prove symptom intensity.

Stump · filed 2026-02-06(c)(4)

And while there need not be objective evidence of the pain itself or of its intensity, Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95 (citations omitted), the adjudicator is directed to consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence, including the claimant’s history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by medical sources or other persons about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) and 416.929(¢)(4). ... Here, the AL] does not adequately explain why Brandon’s testimony as to the frequency of his bowel movements as well as his fatigue and malaise are inconsistent with the medical evidence or other evidence in the record, especially when considered alongside Brandon’s regular complaints to providers about fatigue, frequent bowel movements, and extended bouts of bloody diarrhea.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires symptom findings to be affirmatively linked to substantial evidence; merely reciting the listed factors is insufficient.

Henley · filed 2025-12-12(c)(3)

As part of the symptom analysis, the ALJ should consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), including: (i) daily activities; (ii) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (iii) precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken; (v) treatment for pain relief aside from medication; (vi) any other measures a claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (vii) any other factors concerning functional limitations. See SSR16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. The Court defers to an ALJ’s symptom evaluation unless the Court finds that the ALJ misread the medical evidence as a whole. See Casias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 801 (10th Cir. 1991). An ALJ’s findings regarding a claimant’s symptoms “should be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence and not just a conclusion in the guise of findings.” Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). The ALJ need not perform a “formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence[,]” Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368, 1372 (10th Cir. 2000), but simply “recit[ing] the factors” is insufficient. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *10.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ who finds a claimant’s symptom reports inconsistent with the evidence to identify the discounted symptom claims and clearly and convincingly explain the reasons with supporting citations.

Maher · filed 2025-12-17(c)

If the ALJ finds inconsistency between the claimant’s reported symptoms and the evidence, the ALJ must identify what symptom claims are being discounted and clearly and convincingly explain the rationale for discounting the symptoms with supporting citation to evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires enough explanation to show how an ALJ reconciled a claimant's symptom complaints with the objective medical evidence; a generalized reference to the overall record is insufficient when that reasoning cannot be discerned.

Martinez · filed 2026-01-06

How an ALJ evaluates a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain and other symptoms is governed by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. SSR 16-3P details how the standards are applied. ... Here, the Undersigned finds that the ALJ did not merely make a vague reference to the “overall record” to find Plaintiff’s allegations inconsistent with the evidence. However, the Undersigned finds that the ALJ’s evaluation does not provide enough detail to support how the ALJ reconciled Plaintiff’s complaints with the objective medical evidence. See Leatherman, 2022 WL 509037, at *3.

An ALJ complies with § 404.1529 by addressing the claimant’s subjective statements, identifying specific supporting medical evidence, and explaining the consistency finding.

Bledsoe v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-31

Thus, the ALJ’s decision addressed the plaintiff’s subjective statements, evaluated the evidence of record, and concluded that the plaintiff could perform her past relevant work. The ALJ’s decision included “specific” reasons, tied to evidence in the record supporting the ALJ’s consistency findings. Kepler, 68 F.3d at 391; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of daily activities, the nature of pain, medication, and other treatment, but the ALJ must connect that evidence to the conclusion about symptom intensity and persistence.

MUKES v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-06-28(c)(3)

Among the factors an ALJ may consider in evaluating the credibility of an individual's symptoms are daily activities, nature of pain, and the use of medications or other treatments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(C)(3). ... Importantly, an ALJ must connect the evidence contained in the record to her conclusion regarding the intensity and persistence of the claimant's symptoms. Simple conclusory statements do not suffice. ... Ultimately, the ALJ failed to explain what inconsistencies existed between Claimant's statements and the medical record. Instead, the opinion is filled with boilerplate language and conclusory statements.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ discounting subjective complaints to identify and explain the evidence that undermines them rather than refer conclusorily to unspecified other evidence.

Woodruff, Jr. v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-07-02(c)

The Court notes that in assessing the credibility of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. ... Indeed, even though the ALJ referenced “other evidence in the record,” the ALJ did not explain what “other evidence” detracted from his subjective complaints. Because the ALJ supplied insufficient reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, this case must be reversed and remanded.

When symptom statements conflict with the record, section 404.1529 requires an express determination with specific reasons, but the ALJ need not discuss every listed factor.

Moser v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-30(c)

If the ALJ finds that the statements are inconsistent with the evidence of record, she must make an express determination and detail specific reasons for the weight given the claimant’s testimony. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *10; Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1066 (8th Cir. 2012); Cline v. Sullivan, 939 F.2d 560, 565 (8th Cir. 1991). While an ALJ must acknowledge and consider the Polaski factors, she need not discuss each one before discounting a claimant’s subjective statements.

Section 404.1529 does not require a formal factor-by-factor recitation, but the ALJ must identify specific evidence and give reasons closely linked to substantial evidence when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Praytor v. SSA · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

While a formalistic, factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence is not required, the ALJ must set forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms and must give specific reasons for his findings that are closely linked to substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to apply the symptom-evaluation factors and give specific, supported reasons for discounting alleged disabling limitations.

Deal v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-07(c)(3)

Accordingly, careful review of the ALJ’s decision as a whole and the record reveals that the ALJ specifically considered Plaintiff’s subjective reports and testimony and discussed extensively the medical records and opinion evidence. Further, the ALJ applied the requisite factors and offered specific reasons and support for discounting Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling limitations in accordance with applicable law.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) do not require a written evaluation of every objective or subjective item when the ALJ sufficiently explains the symptom assessment using the regulatory factors.

Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-28(c)(2)-(3)

And, critically, an ALJ is not required to provide a written evaluation of every piece of evidence in the record, be it objective or subjective, in articulating his RFC determination. ... Because ALJ Collins discussed the subjective and objective medical evidence at length, weighed Cook’s testimony against the record evidence, and considered Cook’s credibility using the regulatory factors, the Court finds that ALJ Collins’ credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and complies with the applicable regulations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the symptom findings to be linked to substantial evidence; an ALJ need not recite every factor formally, but merely reciting the factors is insufficient.

Northcraft v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-01(c)(3)

The ALJ need not perform a “formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence[,]” Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368, 1372 (10th Cir. 2000), but simply “recit[ing] the factors” is insufficient. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *10. Here, the Court finds that the ALJ set out the appropriate analysis, and cited evidence supporting her reasons for finding that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not believable to the extent alleged—she gave clear and specific reasons that were specifically linked to the evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the listed symptom factors and a specific explanation connecting the evidence to the symptoms found consistent or inconsistent.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-29(c)(3)

The ALJ must weigh the claimant’s subjective complaints, the relevant objective medical evidence, and any other evidence of the following factors: (i) The individual’s daily activities; (ii) Location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) Type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; (v) Treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain or other symptoms; (vi) Other measures taken to relieve pain or other symptoms; (vii) Other factors concerning functional limitations due to pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... The ALJ did not provide any discussion as to which of Deborah M.’s symptoms were inconsistent with or not supported by the evidence. A listing of the medical evidence “is no substitute for analysis or explanation.” Smith v. Astrue, No. 09 CV 6210, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17691, 2011 WL 722539, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2011).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to address every supported symptom factor, connect the factors to record evidence, and explain why that evidence supports the symptom conclusion, without a formal factor-by-factor recitation.

Chavira v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-10(c)(3)

In his evaluation, the ALJ need not provide “a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence,” Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368, 1372 (10th Cir. 2000), or discuss factors for which “there is no information in the evidence of record,” SSR 16-3P, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7. But the ALJ must do more than “simply ‘recite the factors that are described in the regulations,’” Hardman v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 676, 678 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *4 (July 2, 1996)), or provide “a conclusion in the guise of findings,” id. at 679 (quoting Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995)). The ALJ must expressly consider all factors for which there is evidence in the record, id. at 680 (citing Winfrey, 92 F.3d at 1021), “link or connect … the factors he recite[s] to … evidence in the record,” and “explain why the specific evidence relevant to each factor led him to conclude [the] claimant’s subjective complaints were not credible,” id. at 679.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to identify the particular inconsistencies used to discount symptoms; an even-handed evidence summary without explaining the reasoning is insufficient.

Schmeeckle v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-01-24(c)(3)

While the ALJ stated both aspects of the record, he did not identify any inconsistencies he relied upon as a basis to discount Plaintiff’s allegations of symptoms. ... Rather, he merely summarized the facts and left it for the reader to surmise which facts demonstrated inconsistencies and how those inconsistencies supported his finding that Plaintiff’s allegations are not entirely consistent. ... The court merely holds that the ALJ did not properly explain his evaluation of Plaintiff’s allegations of symptoms and remand is necessary for a proper evaluation in accordance with SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c) permits rejection of symptom testimony only with specific, clear, and convincing reasons grounded in symptom testimony, objective evidence, and other record evidence.

Kraemer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-31(c)

When an ALJ evaluates a claimant’s symptoms, he considers symptom testimony, objective medical evidence, and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). The ALJ may “reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of [the] symptoms” provided that the ALJ also explains his decision “by providing specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so.” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 488–89 (9th Cir. 2015).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to address contrary symptom evidence and explain how treatment and other facts support discounting specific complaints rather than cherry-picking or speculating.

Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-04(b)-(c)

The ALJ should not have picked one examination that supported her finding without addressing the examinations that could point toward a finding of disability. ... If the ALJ found these actions unpersuasive, the administrative decision needed to provide a logical bridge as to why.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to support an adverse symptom finding with specific objective and nonmedical evidence.

MORRIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-02-24(c)

The ALJ then explained his decision to discredit Plaintiff’s statements of disabling symptoms by pointing to specific objective medical and nonmedical evidence as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ who discounts episodic symptom reports to explain the evidence rejected or not relied upon and why those reports were not credited.

Mitchell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-03-02(c)(3)

To the extent that the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s subjective reports of head and body pain, light and sound sensitivity, visual impairment, and nausea and vomiting for up to two days at a time every two weeks, he has failed to discuss the evidence he rejected or chose not to rely upon and whether or why he found Plaintiff lacked credibility as to these reports of not constant, but episodic pain and functional limitations.

Section 404.1529 requires explicit and adequate reasons, supported by evidence, for rejecting subjective symptom testimony.

Turk v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-07(c)(1)-(4)

If an ALJ rejects a claimant’s subjective testimony regarding his symptoms, the ALJ “must articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit an ALJ to reject subjective complaints solely because they lack objective medical support, and the ALJ must identify the specific evidence that undermines the complaints.

(SS) Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-14(c)(2)

Here, the ALJ incorrectly discredits Plaintiff’s subjective complaints solely because such complaints were not supported by objective medical evidence. ... The ALJ did not specifically identify which physical examinations are “benign” and therefore did not provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires comparing symptom statements with the other evidence and explaining which statements are consistent or inconsistent.

Massey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-15(c)(4)

He must explain which of the claimant’s symptoms he found “consistent or inconsistent with the evidence in [the] record and how [his] evaluation of the individual’s symptoms led to [his] conclusions.”

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires considering inconsistencies between symptom statements and the rest of the evidence and explaining the resulting finding.

GRAY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2022-03-16(c)(4)

The ALJ properly considered all of Plaintiff’s symptoms and the extent to which said symptoms were consistent with the evidence, as required by 20 C.F.R. 404.1529 and Social Security Ruling 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an adverse symptom finding to be supported by specific objective and nonmedical evidence.

COSTELLO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-17(c)

The ALJ then explained her decision to afford less weight to Plaintiff’s statements of disabling symptoms by pointing to specific objective medical and nonmedical evidence as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).