20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of treatment notes in evaluating symptom severity, including a claimant’s denial of mental symptoms during visits addressing physical conditions.

Collins v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-31(c)(3)

The ALJ also properly considered Plaintiff’s treatment notes in accordance with the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). Regarding the treatment notes, Plaintiff asserts that the records the ALJ relied on in finding Plaintiff did not report depression, anxiety, and/or panic attacks at several examinations were all records from treatment visits to address Plaintiff’s physical conditions. See Pl. Br. at 12. In these records, Plaintiff denied depression, anxiety, and/or panic attacks – all bases upon which he filed for benefits – during the period of time for which he seeks benefits, and such denials are relevant to the assessment of the severity of Plaintiff’s symptoms. (Tr. 452, 459, 498, 532, 538, 546, 567). See Chesser v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 1161, 1167 (8th Cir. 2017). Furthermore, the ALJ did not dispute that Plaintiff had mental impairments, as these were found to be severe and were accommodated in the residual functional capacity finding.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of other symptom evidence beyond objective findings, including persistent treatment efforts and the need for additional medication to control breakthrough pain.

White v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-02(c)(3)

In conducting the analysis of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s pain, the agency will consider objective medical evidence and will also “carefully consider any other information [claimant] may submit about [their] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Here, the ALJ did not sufficiently address the aforementioned probative evidence in the medical record that supports Plaintiff’s complaints of pain. The ALJ’s decision acknowledges that, even with the pain pump, Plaintiff continues to have pain that ranks between 4 and 7 on a 0-10 pain scale and must occasionally bolus herself with additional morphine through the pain pump and/or take oxycodone/Percocet for breakthrough pain. (R. 18-19). Yet the ALJ dismisses this evidence, without explanation, in concluding that Plaintiff’s “pain pump essentially resolved her symptoms.” (R. 17, 19). The need for additional medication merited consideration, and the ALJ erred in failing to address this evidence in determining that Plaintiff’s pain pump resolved her symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider treatment received, including the absence of a mental-health treatment history, when evaluating alleged symptoms.

Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-30(c)(3)(v)

And as the ALJ observed, the medical evidence of record showed neither a history of mental health treatment nor objective findings reflecting psychological limitations. (Doc. 19-2 at 22); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3)(v) (factors an ALJ will consider include treatment received).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom severity, and improvement with treatment may undermine allegations of disabling limitations.

Haynes v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-31(c)(3)

Fifth, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s mental health impairments improved with treatment. Tr. 23. The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii) requires an ALJ, when objective evidence alone does not substantiate alleged symptoms, to assess the claimant's statements against the details of the record as a whole.

Guadagno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

When the objective medical evidence alone does not substantiate the claimant's alleged symptoms, the ALJ must assess the credibility of the claimant’s statements considering the details of the case record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... The ALJ properly applied the two-step analysis here and concluded, correctly, that Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms are not consistent with the medical evidence of record. Tr. 13. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to identify any records that are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegations. As explained in the preceding section, nearly all of the evidence in the record is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegations.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ, after finding an impairment capable of producing symptoms, to assess their intensity and persistence and how they limit work capacity by comparing the claimant's statements with the entire record.

Blake v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-25(c)(1)

Finally, if the record shows the claimant has a “medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce her symptoms,” the ALJ must assess the “intensity and persistence of the symptoms in determining how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work.” Costigan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 603 F. App’x 783, 786 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)). The ALJ must consider “all of the record, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s history, and statements of the claimant and her doctors,” and the ALJ may consider factors like the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication; and treatments other than medication. Id. Last, the ALJ must examine the claimant’s testimony about her symptoms in relation to all of the other evidence, considering whether there are any “inconsistencies or conflicts between those statements and the record.” Id. ... As such, the ALJ did not fully discredit Blake’s testimony and instead determined, with limits, that Blake could perform work beyond what she alleged. R. 24. ... the court finds that the ALJ’s credibility determinations are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective evidence, reports to medical and other sources, daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures, and other functional factors.

Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-25(c)

A claimant’s statements about intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, which are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, are less likely to reduce her capacity to perform work related activities. SSR 16-3p, at *7; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... Plaintiff does not identify any significant evidence the ALJ failed to consider. Rather, here, the ALJ complied with the regulations and considered the entire record, including Plaintiff’s ADLs, and found Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her alleged symptoms were not entirely consistent with the record evidence. ... Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings on the subjective symptom evaluation and the RFC.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(vii)’s catch-all permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s alcohol use as another factor concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.

Godfrey v. Saul · filed 2021-08-26(c)(3)(vii)

Additionally, while Plaintiff asserts alcohol usage is not one of the six factors the SSA may consider, it certainly appears that alcohol usage could be considered under the following catch-all factor ALJs may consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s pain symptoms: “Other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(vii). Plaintiff does not cite any authority that specifically prohibits considering a claimant’s alcohol usage. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err when he factored in Plaintiff’s alcohol usage.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of objective findings, treatment history, medication response, daily activities, treatment intensity, compliance, and the other listed symptom factors.

Moua v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

The ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility and supported his determination with substantial evidence in the record. The ALJ expressly noted that his credibility determination was made based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which includes the Polaski factors. (Tr. 20–21.) Specifically, the ALJ considered and pointed out inconsistencies relating to objective clinical findings and treatment history from Plaintiff’s physical and mental examinations, considered her response to medication and treatment, her daily activities, as well as lack of more intensive treatment and lack of compliance with conservative treatment. (Tr. 20–26.)

Sections 404.1529(a) and (c)(3) require consideration of all symptom evidence and possible reasons for conservative treatment, including affordability and access, though failure to inquire may be harmless when the same effective regimen was used during periods of greater access.

Hillman v. Saul · filed 2021-08-26(a), (c)(3)

For proper symptom analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has impairments that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain and symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Then, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of these symptoms, including how much they limit the claimant’s ability to do work. Id. The ALJ has to consider all available evidence when they make their evaluation. Id. This includes information that “medical sources or nonmedical sources provide about [claimant’s] pain or other symptoms,” including “what medications, treatments or other methods” the claimant uses to alleviate their symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ should have inquired into Plaintiff’s ability to access treatment and what treatment would look like if he had resources and fewer limitations. But the current evidence shows that Plaintiff would be undergoing the same treatment even if the hospital was right next to his home, and if everything were paid for. This is because Plaintiff’s “conservative” treatment regimen appeared to be working when it was followed. Thus, describing his treatment regimen as “conservative” was appropriate and not an error.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of all symptoms and all statements from the claimant and medical or nonmedical sources about how symptoms affect daily activities and the ability to work.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-30(a)

Here, although the ALJ acknowledged at step two that Plaintiff’s migraine headaches were a severe impairment, Tr. 12, the ALJ did not evaluate—let alone properly evaluate—the effect of those migraines on Plaintiff’s capacity to work. Indeed, aside from recognizing that Plaintiff “also had migraines,” Tr. 16, the ALJ made no mention in the RFC analysis of Plaintiff’s migraines or how they may limit her functioning. ... As a result, it is unclear whether the ALJ considered the limiting effects of Plaintiff’s migraines on her capacity to work, as required under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 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.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount the full extent of alleged symptoms based on conflicts between the claimant's statements and medical-source statements about symptom effects.

Meyer v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-30(c)(4)

The Court finds the inconsistency between Plaintiff’s own statements and her pain management physician’s findings to be a legitimate basis for disbelieving the full extent of Plaintiff’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“[The ALJ] will consider 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, including . . . statements by [the claimant’s] medical sources or other persons about how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [her].”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) forbids rejecting symptom statements solely for lack of objective support while permitting consideration of daily activities, treatment, and other record evidence.

Barksdale v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-31(c)(2), (3)

Ms. B. argues the ALJ wrongfully rejected her statements about the intensity and persistence of these subjective complaints solely because they were not supported by objective medical evidence. (Opening Br. 23, Doc. No. 24); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms . . . solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”) This is not the case. ... Consistent with governing regulations, the ALJ also considered Ms. B.’s daily activities, treatment sought and received, and other factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). Overall, the ALJ properly accounted for Ms. B.’s subjective symptoms insofar as they were supported by the whole record.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) requires consideration of medical, lay, activity, medication, treatment, and other functional evidence and forbids rejecting symptoms solely for lack of objective support.

McCalment v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-13(c)(2), (3)

In evaluating the claimant's subjective symptoms, “an ALJ must consider several factors, including the claimant's daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, and justify the finding with specific reasons.” Villano, 556 F.3d at 562 (citations omitted); see 20 CFR §404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p. An ALJ may not discredit a claimant's testimony about his symptoms “solely because there is no objective medical evidence supporting it.” Villano, 556 F.3d at 562 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to weigh the entire case record and the listed symptom factors rather than cherry-pick isolated medical findings or activities while ignoring contrary evidence.

Doenges v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-31(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 erred in failing to consider the totality of Mark D.’s alleged subjective symptoms. The ALJ focused on Mark D.’s failure to note current pain during medical appointments, but the ALJ failed to consider his complaints that activity and kneeling caused him increased pain. ... Therefore, the ALJ has impermissibly cherry-picked evidence to support his conclusion without considering the evidence to the contrary.

Section 404.1529(a) makes medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how symptoms affect the claimant relevant to the RFC, but does not require every treatment note to be summarized.

Hutter v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-03(a)

Relevant evidence includes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5. ... The ALJ wasn’t required to summarize every treatment note in detail. Bosely v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 397 F. App’x 195, 199 (6th Cir. 2010). The ALJ was required to consider the medical record as a whole, and he did just that, stating that he gave “careful consideration of the entire record.” (Tr. 430). “The obligation to consider the entire record is not an obligation to summarize the entire record. Austin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-cv-2380, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 253171, at *33 (N.D. Ohio July 7, 2020).

Section 404.1529(b) requires only objective evidence of an impairment that could reasonably have caused some degree of the alleged symptom, not evidence that the impairment could cause the alleged severity.

Bowen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-01(b)

First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. Id. (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014-15; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (Mar. 27, 2017)). When doing so, “the claimant need not show that [their] impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the severity of the symptom []as alleged; [the claimant] need only show that it could reasonably have caused some degree of the symptom.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996). ... For the reasons that follow, the Court finds the ALJ provided clear, convincing, and specific reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s symptom statements.

Section 404.1529(d)(3) does not allow subjective evidence of pain to substitute for a missing or deficient medical sign or laboratory finding needed to establish listing-level severity.

CRUMP v. SAUL · filed 2021-09-01(d)(3)

Although subjective evidence of pain may support a finding of disability under certain circumstances, such evidence fails to “substitute . . . for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity of [an] impairment(s) to that of a listed impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3); see also Venable v. Berryhill, No. 3:18cv458, 2019 WL 2397253, (E.D. Va. June 6, 2019) (reviewing objective medical record and upholding ALJ’s conclusion that claimant experienced no malaise); Backman v. Colvin, No.: 4:12-cv-1897, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24948, at *18 (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 2014) (“Plaintiff's self reported statements are insufficient to meet or equal listing criteria.”). Accordingly, the Objections fail to justify remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to discount subjective complaints based on effective treatment and work or other activities inconsistent with the alleged limitations.

Mackey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-01(c)(3)(i), (iv)-(v)

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s subjective complaints if the record shows effective treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006). ... Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that plaintiff’s wellbeing and effective symptom management were typical for the relevant period, this also provides an adequate basis for the ALJ to have discredited plaintiff’s subjective testimony of symptoms. ... An ALJ may discount a claimant’s subjective complaints when they are inconsistent with his activity level. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Morgan, 169 F.3d at 600.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of prior work history and efforts to work but focuses the inquiry on whether statements about work ability are consistent with other evidence rather than on the claimant's general credibility.

Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-02(c)(3)

A claimant’s “prior work record” and “efforts to work” are among the many factors that an ALJ might consider in evaluating the claimant’s complaints. SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS at *16; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). And the focus of the ALJ’s inquiry is not whether the claimant’s statements are credible, but whether the representations the claimant makes concerning her ability to perform work activities are consistent with other evidence in the record reflecting her physical and mental abilities.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating subjective complaints.

Sargent v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-12(c)

Thus, the ALJ erred in not considering Plaintiff’s long work history in considering his credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) and (c)(4) make recommended treatment relevant to a pain assessment, but a treatment recommendation does not resolve the assessment in the claimant’s favor.

Busha v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3), (c)(4)

Although a claimant’s recommended treatment regimen may bear relevance to the credibility assessment, see SSR 16-3p (the ALJ may consider (“[t]reatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain” in assessing pain allegations), no authority indicates it “resolves” the pain assessment in the claimant’s favor.

Section 404.1529(b)–(c) uses a two-part symptom inquiry: objective medical evidence must first establish an impairment capable of producing the symptoms, after which the entire record determines their intensity, persistence, and effect on work.

VIDRO-OJEDA v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-09-03(b)-(c)

Social Security Ruling 16-3p, Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5 (Oct. 25, 2017) (“SSR 16-3p”) (consistent with the Commissioner’s regulations) adopts a two-part test for evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ “must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms, such as pain.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3. A claimant must provide “objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source to establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce [the] alleged symptoms.” Id. Objective medical evidence consists of medical signs (“anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities established by medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques”) and laboratory findings “shown by the use of medically acceptable laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Id. Upon satisfaction of part one by the claimant, the analysis proceeds to part two, which requires an assessment of the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms, as well as the extent to which those symptoms affect his or her ability to work. See id. at *4. In making that determination, the ALJ must “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires a two-part inquiry that first identifies an impairment capable of causing the symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and functional limits using objective and other evidence.

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

Title 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and Social Security Ruling 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, *3 (March 16, 2016) describe a two-part process for evaluating an individual’s subjective statements about symptoms, including pain. First, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged; second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functional limitations of those symptoms by considering objective medical evidence and other evidence, including: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(a)–(c) requires a two-step inquiry into whether an impairment could reasonably cause alleged symptoms and whether statements about their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects are consistent with medical and other evidence.

Gillespie v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-07(a)-(c)

Here, the ALJ stated that “after careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimants statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and the other evidence in the record.” (R. at 28.) The ALJ properly followed the two-step process in determining (1) whether Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; and, (2) whether Plaintiff's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects were consistent with the medical or other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Craig, 76 F. 3d at 594-95.

Section 404.1529(a)–(c) requires objective evidence of an underlying condition that could cause alleged symptoms, followed by evaluation of their intensity, persistence, and work effects using medical evidence and other specified factors.

Alexander v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-07(a)-(c)

Plaintiff’s subjective complaints alone are insufficient to establish a disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a); Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 (11th Cir. 1991). Subjective testimony of pain and other symptoms may establish the presence of a disabling impairment if it is supported by medical evidence. See Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir. 1995). The Eleventh Circuit applies a two-part pain standard when Plaintiff claims disability due to pain or other subjective symptoms. The plaintiff must show evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (1) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged symptoms arising from the condition, or (2) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such severity that it can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b), 416.929(a), (b); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029; Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). If the first part of the pain standard is satisfied, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and their effect on her ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225-26. In evaluating the extent to which the plaintiff’s symptoms, such as pain, affect her capacity to perform basic work activities, the ALJ will consider (1) objective medical evidence, (2) the nature of a Plaintiff’s symptoms, (3) the Plaintiff’s daily activities, (4) precipitating and aggravating factors, (5) the effectiveness of medication, (6) treatment sought for relief of symptoms, (7) any measures the Plaintiff takes to relieve symptoms, and (8) any conflicts between a Plaintiff’s statements and the rest of the evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), (4), 416. 929(c)(3), (4); SSR 16-3p. ... The parties are not in dispute as to the first prong of this test. The ALJ concluded that “the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause some of the alleged symptoms” (Tr. at 16), and the Defendant does not contest her finding (Doc. 12 at Page 12). However, the ALJ went on to say, “[T]he claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record….” (Tr. at 16) “Ultimately,” the ALJ determined, “the claimant alleges a greater degree of debilitation than the medical evidence can support.” (Id. at 19.) The ALJ covers a variety of evidence to support her conclusion, including Plaintiff’s daily activities, the effectiveness of medication, objective medical evidence, and treatment history. (Id. at 15-19.) Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion in this case.

Section 404.1529(a)–(b) requires a two-step pain inquiry: an impairment must first be capable of producing the alleged symptoms, after which their consistency with objective and other evidence is evaluated.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-13(a)-(b)

The regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s assertions of pain and other limitations. At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). That requirement stems from the fact that subjective assertions of pain alone cannot ground a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider “the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence” of record. Id. ... The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s treatment of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence, both objective and opinion.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(3) requires a two-step symptom inquiry that first identifies an impairment capable of causing the symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and work effects using objective and other listed evidence.

DILLER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-15(a), (c)(3)

Specifically, an ALJ must follow a two-step process in evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (March 16, 2016). First, the ALJ “must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms, such as pain.” Id. “Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms is established, [the ALJ] evaluate[s] the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities[.]” Id.; see also Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999) (“[Evaluation of the intensity and persistence of the pain or symptom and the extent to which it affects the ability to work] obviously requires the ALJ to determine the extent to which a claimant is accurately stating the degree of pain or the extent to which he or she is disabled by it.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). In conducting this evaluation, an ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence as well as other evidence relevant to a claimant’s subjective symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (listing the following factors to consider: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, currently received or have received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures currently used or have used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms). ... Here, the ALJ followed this two-step evaluation process. ... In the view of this Court, this record provides substantial support for the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s subjective statements as inconsistent with the record evidence. See Van Horn, 717 F.2d at 873; Miller, 719 F. App’x at 134; Izzo, 186 F. App’x at 286. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ sufficiently explained the reasoning applied in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and her findings are entitled to this Court’s deference. See id.; SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(3)–(4) requires medical evidence of an impairment capable of producing alleged symptoms and, when objective evidence does not establish their reported severity, consideration of daily activities, inconsistencies, and other relevant information.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-03(a), (c)(3)-(4)

A claimant's statement that she is experiencing pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that she is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). In determining whether a claimant suffers from debilitating pain and other symptoms, the two-part test set forth in Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 853 (6th Cir. 1986), applies. ... When, as in this case, the reported pain and other symptoms suggest an impairment of greater severity than can be shown by objective medical evidence, the Administrative Law Judge will consider other information and factors which may be relevant to the degree of pain alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Next, Plaintiff contends the RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to appropriately consider Plaintiff’s subjective statements about her symptoms. To the contrary, the ALJ accurately summarized Plaintiff’s subjective statements regarding these conditions, the medical evidence related thereto, and medical opinions concerning these conditions (Tr. 18-28). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p. ... Because the reported pain and other symptoms suggested impairments of greater severity than could be shown by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ appropriately considered other information and factors that may be relevant to assessing Plaintiff’s pain and other symptoms (Id.). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). For example, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s level of daily activity (Id.). See id. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 1993); Blacha v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 927 F.2d 228, 231 (6th Cir. 1990). The ALJ also considered whether there were any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between Plaintiff’s statements and the rest of the evidence in the record (Id.). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). The ALJ’s conclusion—Plaintiff did not suffer symptoms to the extent she testified (Tr. 24)—is supported by substantial evidence and comports with the law.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)–(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom intensity and persistence using the entire record, including objective evidence, medical-source information, treatment, inconsistencies, and contrary lines of evidence.

Ray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-03(c)(2)-(4)

The regulations provide factors for an ALJ to consider in determining the extent to which a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of her symptoms limit her capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Those factors include objective medical evidence, information from a claimant’s medical sources about her symptoms, a claimant’s course of treatment, and inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(4). The ALJ must carefully consider the entire case record and evaluate the “intensity and persistence of an individual's symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms affect the individual’s ability to do basic work activities.” SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 at *2. Though the ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence in the record, the ALJ may not ignore an entire line of evidence that is contrary to his findings. Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 322 F.3d 912, 917 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir. 2001) and Zurawski, 245 F.3d at 888). ... While the Court is satisfied that the ALJ’s analysis supporting his RFC determination was not unreasonable, the Defendant inexplicably failed to address Plaintiff’s argument that her husband’s third-party statement should have been considered. ... Nevertheless, Defendant forfeited this argument by failing to brief it.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider objective and other information about symptoms and give specific, evidence-linked reasons showing how the claimant's statements were weighed.

Neel v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-07(c)

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. See White v. Massanari, 271 F3d. 1256, 1261 (10th Cir. 2001); Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 390 (10th Cir. 1995). ... In his decision, the ALJ did not explain how he weighed Plaintiff’s hearing testimony regarding limitations in looking down or from side to side. The ALJ failed to address these statements in relation to the objective medical evidence or the appropriate factors. ... Accordingly, this error requires reversal and remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits family-member evidence without medical training and requires specific reasons connecting symptom statements and the listed factors to supporting or contradictory record evidence.

Dawman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-10(c)(3)

As an initial matter, the ALJ may not dismiss a family member’s statements simply because he is not a “well-qualified medical provider,” as the regulations permit testimony from family members without requiring them to have medical training. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). However, this is not the only error in the ALJ’s analysis. More troublesome is the ALJ’s failure to provide any analysis or discussion of the statements in Mr. Dawman’s Third-Party Function Report and how they were either consistent or inconsistent with the record.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of a claimant’s statements about symptoms, but an ALJ does not reversibly err by omitting a symptom that a represented claimant failed to present at the hearing.

Christian v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-13(a)

The word “symptoms” is defined as “[a claimant’s] own description of [her] physical or mental impairment.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(i), 416.902(n) (emphasis added). Thus, as the definition suggests, to qualify as a symptom, claimants must actually describe their perceived impairments. The regulations and rulings describing how symptoms should be evaluated reveal that this description of one’s perceived impairments should occur at the hearing before the ALJ. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *10 (“Our adjudicators must base their findings solely on the evidence in the case record, including any testimony from the individual or other witnesses at a hearing before an administrative law judge or hearing officer.”); id. at 11 (“Adjudicators must limit their evaluation to the individual’s statements about his or her symptoms and the evidence in the record that is relevant to the individual’s impairments.”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(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.”). Thus, when a claimant fails to discuss a symptom before an ALJ, courts will generally disregard a claimant’s argument that the ALJ failed to consider evidence of such symptom. ... It is obvious from the hearing transcript that plaintiff did not take seriously her symptom of fatigue and thus determined it was not worth presenting before the ALJ. Accordingly, this Court will not oblige plaintiff’s attempt to have her case remanded when it was solely her own fault that the ALJ did not discuss her symptom of fatigue. See Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1149 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen the claimant is represented by counsel at the administrative hearing, the ALJ should ordinarily be entitled to rely on the claimant's counsel to structure and present claimant's case in a way that the claimant's claims are adequately explored.” (quoting Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1167 (10th Cir. 1997))).

Section 404.1529(d)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate pain’s impact on residual functional capacity by identifying an impairment capable of producing pain and then assessing its intensity, persistence, and work-related limitations.

Kimball v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-16(d)(4)

To be sure, an ALJ must evaluate the impact of one’s pain on his or her RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(4). In doing so, an ALJ must first “determine whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment (MDI) that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3. Next, an ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms such as pain and determine the extent to which an individual’s symptoms limit his or her ability to perform work-related activities . . . .” Id. at 4. ... It is evident that, throughout the ALJ’s decision, he considered that Plaintiff experienced postoperative pain and that such considerations informed the ALJ’s determination as to Plaintiff’s RFC. Again, the Court will not disturb the ALJ’s decision on this ground.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis that first asks whether an impairment could produce the symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the medical and other evidence.

MAGEE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-30(a), (c)

Moreover, the ALJ followed the proper method in assessing Magee’s symptoms and pain. That is, he first determined whether there was an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce Magee’s pain or other symptoms, then the ALJ evaluated the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of those symptoms.

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step analysis: the claimant must have an impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms, after which the alleged intensity, persistence, and limiting effects must be evaluated against the record.

Brock v. SSA · filed 2021-10-15(b)-(c)

First, the ALJ must conclude that there is a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. ... The second step requires that the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms find support in the record.

Section 404.1529(a) requires a medically determinable impairment capable of producing the symptoms and consideration of all available evidence when evaluating their intensity, persistence, and work-related effects.

Harrison v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-03(a)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 provides that a claimant’s symptoms will not be found to affect her ability to do basic work activities unless (1) medical signs or laboratory findings show that a medically determinable impairment is present and (2) the impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms. In evaluating the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms, all of the available evidence, including medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and the claimant’s statements regarding her symptoms must be considered.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step inquiry into whether an impairment could produce alleged symptoms and how their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects constrain functioning.

Roush v. Saul · filed 2022-01-18(a)-(c)

This involves a two-step inquiry according to which the ALJ must (1) determine whether an underlying medically determinable mental impairment or impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms; and, if so, (2) evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functional limitations.

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step symptom analysis: the claimant must first show an impairment reasonably expected to cause the alleged symptoms, after which the ALJ evaluates how consistent the symptoms are with objective medical and other record evidence.

Pezzo v. Saul · filed 2022-06-28(a), (b)

The regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant's assertions of pain and other limitations. At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §[§] 404.1529(b); [416.929(b)]. That requirement stems from the fact that subjective assertions of pain alone cannot ground a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. §[§] 404.1529(a); [416.929(a)]. If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider “the extent to which [the claimant's] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence” of record. [20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a); 416.929(a)]. The ALJ must consider [s]tatements [the claimant] or others make about [her] impairment(s), [her] restrictions, [her] daily activities, [her] efforts to work, or any other relevant statements [she] make[s] to medical sources during the course of examination or treatment, or to [the agency] during interviews, on applications, in letters, and in testimony in [its] administrative proceedings. . . .

Under Section 404.1529, an ALJ first asks whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then assesses whether the record supports the alleged intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Showalter v. SSA · filed 2022-06-17(b), (c)

Regarding this claim, the Court notes that an ALJ must apply a two-step process for evaluating an individual’s subjective complaints of pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p, 2017 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017); Walters v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997). First, the ALJ must conclude that there is a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). The ALJ must then consider whether the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms find support in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to identify an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms and then to assess whether the alleged functional limitations are consistent with medical signs, laboratory findings, and other record evidence.

Walker v. Saul · filed 2022-06-19(a), (b)

The regulations require a two-step process for evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s assertions about her limitations. First, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Second, the ALJ must consider “the extent to which [claimant’s] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence” on the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Here, the ALJ met both requirements.

Symptom evaluation first asks whether an impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects from the record as a whole.

Dorf v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-21(a)-(c)

Social Security regulations require a two-step process for considering a claimant’s symptoms. First, the ALJ considers whether there is an impairment “which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and which, when considered with all of the other evidence (including statements about the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] pain or other symptoms which may reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings), would lead to a conclusion that [a claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Second, where an impairment is shown, the ALJ must evaluate the “intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects” of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functioning. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). ... Based upon the record as a whole, the Court concludes that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's fibromyalgia in determining his RFC.

After finding an impairment that could reasonably produce alleged symptoms, an ALJ must evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects and consider other record evidence when the claimant’s statements conflict with objective evidence.

Stites v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-22(b), (c)

First, the ALJ considers whether there is “a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. at § 404.1529(b). Second, if the claimant has medical impairments which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged, the ALJ must evaluate the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of those symptoms to the extent to which they limit the claimant’s work-related activities. Id. at § 404.1529(c). When the statements are not consistent with objective medical evidence, the ALJ must consider other evidence in the record to determine if the claimant’s symptoms limit the ability to do work-related activities. Id. ... Therefore, the ALJ properly considered the subjective complaints of pain and did not err when finding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms not to be consistent with the objective medical evidence.

Failure to expressly identify which step defeated symptom testimony can be harmless when the basis is clear, but the second-step consistency finding still requires a specific explanation permitting review.

Daniels v. Saul · filed 2022-07-26(b), (c)(3)

Failure to comply with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, however, does not require remand where it can be determined from the ALJ’s decision on which step a claimant’s testimony was found not to be credible. ... But the ALJ did not provide a sufficient explanation for the ALJ’s conclusion at the second step: the determination that Daniels’ self-reported symptoms were inconsistent with medical evidence and other evidence in the record. ... Accordingly, on remand, a proper analysis should be conducted of Daniels’ credibility as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

A claimant relying on subjective symptoms must first show an underlying condition with confirming objective evidence or a condition reasonably expected to cause the symptoms; if that threshold is met, the ALJ evaluates symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Balduf v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-07-13(a)-(c)

When a claimant attempts to establish disability through their own testimony regarding subjective symptoms, the claimant must provide evidence of an underlying medical condition, and either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain or symptom or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed symptom. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a)-(c); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). If an ALJ finds that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity, persistence, and limiting effect of the claimant’s subjective symptoms on her capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Duval v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 628 F. App’x 703, 711 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (unreported).

When disabling symptoms are alleged, an ALJ first determines whether an impairment could reasonably produce them and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and effect on work capacity.

Offord v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-13(c)(1)

When a claimant alleges symptoms of disabling severity, the ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating these symptoms. See e.g., Massey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 409 F. App’x 917, 921 (6th Cir. 2011). First, the ALJ must determine if there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms. Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). See also SSR 16-3p,3 2016 WL 1119029 (March 16, 2016).

Section 404.1529 allows an ALJ to discount symptom complaints inconsistent with the record as a whole after considering the regulatory factors, and the resulting residual functional capacity need include only limitations credited from the entire record.

Walker v. Saul · filed 2022-08-02(a)-(c)

The ALJ must consider a claimant’s subjective complaints of symptoms when determining a claimant’s RFC. See Goff, 421 F.3d at 790. The ALJ cannot discount subjective complaints solely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence. Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 931–32 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Mouser, 545 F.3d at 638). However, the ALJ may discount complaints if they are inconsistent with the evidence as a whole. ... When analyzing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ considers 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). ... After engaging in a proper credibility analysis, the ALJ then limits his “RFC determination to only the impairments and limitations he found credible based on his evaluation of the entire record.”

Section 404.1529 bars disability based on allegations alone and requires a two-step evaluation: first establish an impairment reasonably expected to produce the symptoms, then evaluate intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the entire record.

Falandysz v. Saul · filed 2022-08-02(a)-(b)

Standing alone, a claimant’s allegation of pain or other symptoms is not enough to establish an impairment or disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a); Prokopick v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 272 Fed. App’x 196, 199 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Under the regulations, an ALJ may not base a finding of disability solely on a claimant’s statements about disabling pain... .”). ... When evaluating a claimant’s subjective allegations of pain or other symptoms, an ALJ utilizes a two-step process. ... First, the ALJ must determine whether there is a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404,1529(b). A claimant cannot be found to be “disabled based on alleged symptoms alone.” ... Once the ALJ has found that a medically determinable impairment has been established, the ALJ must then evaluate the claimant’s allegations about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of his or her symptoms against the evidence of record. Id. This evaluation requires the ALJ to consider “the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” Id.

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step framework: allegations alone do not establish disability; an impairment must reasonably produce the symptoms, after which their consistency with objective and other evidence is evaluated.

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-12(a)-(b)

SSA regulations provide that statements of subjective pain and other symptoms alone cannot establish a disability. Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)). The ALJ must follow a two-step framework for evaluating allegations of pain and other limitations. Id. First, the ALJ considers whether the claimant suffers from a “medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce” the symptoms alleged. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

Section 404.1529 requires an impairment established by medical signs or laboratory findings, followed by evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects from the entire record and the seven regulatory factors.

Calderon v. Saul · filed 2022-08-12(a)-(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must follow a two-step process in which the ALJ resolves whether a medically determinable impairment could be the cause of the symptoms alleged by the claimant, and subsequently must evaluate the alleged symptoms in consideration of the record as a whole. SSR 16-3p. First, symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, will only be considered to affect a claimant's ability to perform work activities if such symptoms result from an underlying physical or mental impairment that has been demonstrated to exist by medical signs or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16–3p. During the second step of this credibility assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated based on the ALJ's evaluation of the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p. ... Thus, to assist in the evaluation of a claimant's subjective symptoms, the Social Security Regulations identify seven factors which may be relevant to the assessment of the severity or limiting effects of a claimant's impairment based on a claimant's symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 applies a two-step symptom inquiry, requires consideration of seven factors and non-objective evidence, and bars rejecting statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Roush v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-15(a), (c)(2)-(3)

A two-step inquiry applies to symptom evaluation. The ALJ first determines if the record contains objective medical evidence of an underlying medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 475-76 (6th Cir. 2003). Step two of symptom evaluation shifts to the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. The ALJ must consider the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a) and (c); SSR16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. ... An ALJ may not consider only objective medical evidence in determining disability unless this evidence alone supports a finding of disability. ... Although plaintiff alleges that the ALJ failed to “explicitly address [plaintiff’s] credibility, and specifically the credibility of her complaints related to fibromyalgia” (Doc. 16 at PAGEID 2252) (emphasis in original), the record demonstrates that the ALJ properly applied the two-step process in evaluating plaintiff’s subjective allegations of pain and limitations.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step inquiry that first identifies an impairment capable of producing symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects for residual functional capacity.

Colon v. Saul · filed 2022-08-26(a)-(c)

At this intermediate step, the ALJ considers all 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), 416.929(a). This involves a two-step inquiry according to which the ALJ must (1) determine whether an underlying medically determinable medical impairment or impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms; and, if so, (2) evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b)-(c), 416.929(b)-(c).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms for consistency with objective and other evidence through a two-step inquiry addressing causation and limiting effects.

Kramer v. Saul · filed 2022-08-29(a)-(c)

At this intermediate step, the ALJ considers all 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), 416.929(a). This involves a two-step inquiry according to which the ALJ must (1) determine whether an underlying medically determinable medical impairment or impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms; and, if so, (2) evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b)-(c), 416.929(b)-(c).

Section 404.1529 applies a two-step symptom inquiry: determine whether an impairment could produce the symptoms and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and functional effects.

Cartagena v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-29(a)-(c)

At this intermediate step, the ALJ considers all 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), 416.929(a). This involves a two-step inquiry according to which the ALJ must (1) determine whether an underlying medically determinable medical impairment or impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms; and, if so, (2) evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b)-(c), 416.929(b)-(c).

An ALJ follows § 404.1529(c)(3) by considering daily activities, physical complaints and treatment, and ways the claimant structures activities to mitigate impairment effects.

Brewington v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-14(c)(3)

However, the ALJ followed the above regulation in evaluating Plaintiff’s symptoms. She considered daily activities, Plaintiff’s physical complaints and treatment (including surgeries), and ways that Plaintiff structures her activities to mitigate the effects of her impairments.

Section 404.1529 requires a medical impairment capable of producing symptoms, followed by evaluation of intensity, persistence, work effects, regulatory factors, and record inconsistencies.

Alexander v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-09-16(a)-(c)(4)

According to the regulations, medical signs or laboratory findings must show there is a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (b). If medical signs or laboratory findings demonstrate the existence of such a medical impairment, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine how the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). ... In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ considers objective medical evidence and information from the claimant and treating or examining physicians, as well as other factors such as evidence of daily activities, the frequency and intensity of pain, any precipitating and aggravating factors, medication taken and any resulting side effects, and any other measures taken to alleviate the claimant’s pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), (3).

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step symptom process and requires consideration of objective evidence, work record, statements, activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and relief measures.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-16(a)-(c)(3)

The law directs a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s subjective complaints. First, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a-b), 416.929(a-b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, 3. Second, once the existence of such a medically determinable impairment has been established, the ALJ evaluates the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they impose work-related functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... The Code of Federal Regulations lists many factors a ALJ should consider when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including pain. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c).

Section 404.1529 provides that symptom statements alone cannot establish disability and requires a two-step inquiry into a symptom-producing impairment and consistency with objective and other evidence.

Edwards v. Saul · filed 2022-09-16(a)-(b)

SSA regulations provide that statements of subjective pain and other symptoms alone cannot establish a disability. Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)). The ALJ must follow a two-step framework for evaluating allegations of pain and other limitations. Id. First, the ALJ considers whether the claimant suffers from a “medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce” the symptoms alleged. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

An ALJ who finds an impairment capable of producing symptoms must evaluate objective and nonobjective evidence, including activities, medication effectiveness, and treatment.

Diaz v. Saul · filed 2022-09-20(c)

The ALJ properly followed the two-step process for evaluating the credibility of Diaz’s statements about her pain and functional limitations. AR at 25. After concluding that Diaz suffered from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce her alleged symptoms, the ALJ addressed in detail objective and non-objective medical evidence, including activities of daily living, the effectiveness of pain medication, and her treatment regime, as enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

A multi-faceted symptom evaluation may rely on medical opinions, treatment history, objective evidence, and daily activities together to assess alleged severity against the record as a whole.

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

The Court finds the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s alleged disabling impairments was appropriate in this case. The ALJ engaged in a multi-faceted evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective allegations and considered, among other things, the medical opinion evidence and prior administrative findings, Plaintiff’s treatment history, the objective medical evidence, and Plaintiff’s reported daily activities. After considering those factors in combination, the ALJ properly discredited the alleged severity of Plaintiff’s impairments, finding Plaintiff’s allegations were inconsistent with and unsupported by the record as a whole. The ALJ’s evaluation and her subsequent RFC findings are supported by substantial evidence, and the Court therefore finds no error in this determination.

An ALJ adequately applies § 404.1529 by addressing symptom duration and frequency, functional limits, daily activities, nonmedication treatment, work history, objective evidence, and improvement with treatment, and by articulating the reasons for the consistency finding.

PALMER v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-09-30

Here, the ALJ addressed Plaintiff's reports regarding the duration and frequency of her symptoms, her functional limitations, her activities of daily living, her treatment other than medication, and her work history. (Docket No. 7-2 at ECF pp. 22-23). The ALJ also discussed the objective evidence and provided a careful consideration of the evidence before ultimately concluding that Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce her alleged symptoms, but her statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. (Docket No. 7-2 at ECF p. 23).

Section 404.1529(c) allows an ALJ to discount alleged pain-related functional limits after considering the relevant symptom factors and supporting the inconsistency finding with substantial record evidence.

Adams v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-21(c)

Based on the evidence before the ALJ, the ALJ conducted a proper evaluation of subjective symptoms and cited substantial evidence to support the finding that Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms were inconsistent with the record.

Sections 404.1529(a) and (b) require a two-step symptom analysis that first identifies an impairment reasonably capable of producing the alleged symptoms and then evaluates their consistency with objective and other record evidence without misreading evidence or ignoring qualifications on daily activities.

Wry v. Saul · filed 2021-09-17(a), (b)

The Regulations set forth a two-step process for evaluating a claimant's subjective reports of pain and disabling symptoms. “At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” See id., 606 F.3d at 49 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). At step two, “the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which [the claimant's] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ in the record.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)). ... Upon review, the court finds that the ALJ misconstrued several of the key pieces of evidence on which he based his analysis of Kelly’s statements. In justifying his decision to discredit Kelly’s testimony about her left hip limitations, he cited primarily irrelevant or out-of-context medical evidence. Moreover, he referenced Kelly’s “varied daily activities” without taking account of the caveats and limitations she consistently asserted. Accordingly, the court finds that the ALJ’s analysis of the consistency of Kelly’s statements with the record was not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) and (c)(3)(i) uses a two-step inquiry that first identifies an impairment capable of producing alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity and persistence using all evidence, including daily activities.

Dewert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-20(c)(1), (c)(3)(i)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints, the Commissioner’s regulations require ALJs to employ a two-step inquiry. Meadors v. Astrue, 370 F. App’x 179, 183 (2d Cir. 2010). “First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a ‘medically determinable impairment[ ] that could reasonably be expected to produce’” his symptoms. Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)). “Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms considering all of the available evidence; and, to the extent that the claimant’s [subjective] contentions are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” Id. In this case, the ALJ applied the two-step inquiry. ... Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify “daily activities” as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i); 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... In sum, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s credibility assessment. The ALJ applied the two-step inquiry and set forth well-supported reasons for finding Plaintiff’s subjective allegations less than fully credible. Plaintiff has not shown that remand on this basis is warranted.

Section 404.1529(a)-(b) requires an ALJ first to find an impairment reasonably capable of producing symptoms and then to assess symptom intensity, persistence, and work-related limitations.

McClure v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(a)-(b)

An ALJ follows a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s subjective complaints. First, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a-b) & 416.929(a-b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, 3 (Mar. 16, 2016). Second, once a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms is established, the ALJ evaluates the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they impose work-related functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a) & 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(a)–(c)(3) requires a two-step symptom inquiry that first identifies an impairment capable of causing pain and then evaluates its intensity, persistence, and work effects using objective evidence and other factors such as activities, treatment, and medication.

Mercado-Acosta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-24(a)-(c)(3)

At the RFC determination, the ALJ followed the two-step process to evaluate symptoms. ... In the second step, the ALJ is required to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s capacity to work. Id. ... In addition to considering the objective evidence in the record, the ALJ examined several other factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... We find that the ALJ appropriately considered Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments, including fibromyalgia, at the subsequent steps of the sequential evaluation. Thus, the ALJ did not err in assessing Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia diagnosis.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) requires an ALJ to consider the listed symptom factors and give specific, record-supported reasons for the weight assigned to subjective statements in relation to other evidence.

Bellamy v. Commissoner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-20(c)(3)-(4)

The regulations require the ALJ to consider specific factors when making credibility determinations. Those factors include the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency and intensity of pain and other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medications; treatment other than medication; and any other measures to reduce pain ... or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ must provide specific reasons for his credibility determination and the weight given to subjective statements, which must be supported by the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (noting that subjective complaints are evaluated in relation to other evidence). ... When the entire record is considered, there is not substantial evidence which supports a change in Plaintiff’s credibility from pre-January 20, 2018 to post- January 20, 2018. Upon careful review, this Court does not find the ALJ’s post-January 20, 2018 credibility finding to enjoy sufficient evidentiary support. See Hill v. Berryhill, No. 17-14262-CIV, 2018 WL 6048006, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2018). In light of the fact that the ALJ’s credibility finding for the period beginning on January 20, 2018, is not sufficiently supported by the record, this case is due to be remanded.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) requires an ALJ to give specific reasons grounded in the listed factors when discounting symptom testimony and forbids rejection based solely on a lack of substantiating objective evidence.

Hamilton v. Saul · filed 2021-09-27(c)(2), (3)

On remand, the ALJ should give specific reasons for the credibility assigned to Plaintiff’s testimony, taking into account the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). And the ALJ must consider more than just the “objective medical evidence.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms . . . solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”); Hilsdorf v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec’y, 724 F. Supp. 2d 330, 350 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (if an ALJ finds that the claimant’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably have been expected to produce the alleged symptoms,” they cannot “then reject [the claimant’s] statements about the pain on the grounds that objective medical evidence does not substantiate those statements.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the listed symptom factors and a symptom assessment supported by accurately characterized evidence and specific reasons.

Peacock v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-27(c)(3)

In addition to this evidence, the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3) are considered. Id. at *7-8. Those factors include daily activities; location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; measures other than treatment a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms, e.g., lying flat on one’s back; and any other factors pertaining to a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. Id. The ALJ’s decision “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. ... In sum, while an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, considering the foregoing evidence that the ALJ either overlooked or misconstrued, the Court is unable to assess whether the ALJ’s assessment of Peacock’s pain is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, notwithstanding the Commissioner’s arguments to the contrary, the Court finds that reversal and remand is necessary in order for the ALJ to provide a more thorough analysis of the evidence as it pertains to Peacock’s subjective allegations regarding his pain.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom testimony using all record evidence and the listed factors and to articulate explicit, adequate reasons when discounting that testimony.

Morris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(c), (c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: “(1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the ‘duration, frequency, and intensity’ of the claimant’s symptoms; (3) ‘[p]recipitating and aggravating factors’; (4) the effectiveness and side effects of any medications; and (5) treatment or other measures taken by the claimant to alleviate symptoms.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c)(3)). The ALJ must consider these factors given all of the evidence of record. Id. And if the ALJ discredits this testimony, then the ALJ “‘must clearly articulate explicit and adequate reasons for’ doing so.” Id. (quoting Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210). ... In sum, the ALJ found unpersuasive the majority of medical provider’s opinions and by doing so, the Court cannot determine what portions, if any, of these unpersuasive opinions the ALJ relied to find Plaintiff’s subjective complaints unsupported by the medical records in evidence. And the only opinion the ALJ found persuasive, Dr. Acosta Alecia’s evaluation, appears consistent with Plaintiff’s subjective complaints concerning his mental limitations especially as to his PTSD complaints. For these reasons, the Court finds that when considering the evidence as a whole, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence of record is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) makes successful symptom management through medication and conservative treatment relevant to evaluating alleged severity.

Barrett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)(iv)

As for the ALJ’s second reason, a finding that a claimant’s impairments are successfully managed with conservative treatment can serve as a clear and convincing reason for discounting a claimant’s testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) 416.929(c)(3)(iv) (the effectiveness of medication and treatment are relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) makes the effectiveness of medication and treatment relevant to evaluating alleged symptoms.

Howard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)(iv)

The ALJ further found that when Plaintiff did pursue conservative treatment, such as physical therapy, medication, exercise and dietary changes, she reported improvements with respect to her gastrointestinal symptoms and her leg and motor strength and denied ongoing symptoms of depression. AR 33, 816, 828, 846, 865-66, 905, 907; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (the effectiveness of medication and treatment are relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of medication and treatment, but routine or conservative care cannot undermine symptom testimony unless the ALJ explains why it is conservative and identifies available appropriate aggressive treatment.

(SS) McKenzie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(c)

Importantly, “the fact that treatment may be routine or conservative is not a basis for finding subjective symptom testimony unreliable absent discussion of the additional, more aggressive treatment options the ALJ believes are available.” Block v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 1567814 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2018), quoting Moon v. Colvin, 139 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1220 (D. Or. 2015)). Thus, an ALJ errs in rejecting subjective complaints on these grounds where he fails “failed to explain why [the treatment] is routine or conservative or what more aggressive treatment was available and appropriate for Plaintiff.” Candice C. v. Saul, 2019 WL 5865610 at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2019).

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

Vaught v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(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.3 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all symptoms and determine how far their alleged effects can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective and other evidence.

Mason-Owens v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-27(a)

In making a disability determination, the ALJ considers all the claimant’s “symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. [The ALJ] will consider all of [the claimant’s] statements about [the claimant’s] symptoms, such as pain, and any description [the claimant’s] medical sources or nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect [the claimant’s] activities of daily living and [the claimant’s] ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(a). ... Further, the ALJ’s credibility determinations are reasonable, specific, and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of all of a claimant’s symptoms in determining disability.

Smith v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-09-28(a)

Furthermore, the ALJ stated: In determining the degree of limitation in each of the six functional domains for the period since June 1, 2017, the undersigned has 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 . . . . R. 27 (emphasis added); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (providing that, in determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ will consider all the claimant’s symptoms). ... The Eleventh Circuit has made clear that these statements are sufficient to demonstrate that the ALJ considered all of A.S.’s impairments—both severe and non-severe—in reaching her disability determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v) permits consideration of medication compliance and the course of treatment when evaluating the consistency of a claimant’s symptom statements, after considering possible reasons for noncompliance.

LITTLE v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

The ALJ therefore did consider the reasons for Plaintiff’s non-compliance and found them to be inconsistent with Plaintiff’s overall testimony regarding his symptoms and related limitations. Just as importantly, Plaintiff’s non-compliance was not the only factor considered by the ALJ in evaluating Plaintiff’s credibility. He also considered the fact that Plaintiff had undergone a relatively routine course of treatment involving medication management with no psychiatric hospitalizations during the relevant period and the fact that there were generally few objective abnormalities in Plaintiff’s mental status examinations. (R. 649). He also considered Plaintiff’s activities of daily living and the fact that he had worked as a caregiver for his girlfriend during the relevant time period, albeit not enough to reach the level of substantial gainful activity. (R. 651, 653). All of these are proper factors for consideration. See Garrett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 274 Fed. Appx. 159, 164 (3d Cir. 2008); S.S.R. 16-3p at **5-8; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) and (v); 404.1571. Where an ALJ has articulated reasons supporting a credibility determination, that determination is afforded significant deference. See Horodenski v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 215 Fed. Appx. 183, 188-89 (3d Cir. 2007); Reefer v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 376, 380 (3d Cir. 2003). The Court finds that such deference is warranted in this case.

Section 404.1529(b) requires objective evidence only of an impairment reasonably capable of producing alleged symptoms before the ALJ evaluates their severity.

Christensen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-22(b)

First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. Id. (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014-15); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c) requires examination of the entire case record, including objective evidence, symptom statements, medical and nonmedical-source information, and other relevant evidence.

Thompson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-22(c)

In doing so, the ALJ must “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual's case record.” Id.; see also id. at *4-7 (elaborating on factors to consider); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (same).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) forbids rejecting symptom statements solely for lack of objective support while permitting consideration of medication, treatment, and treatment response.

McClanahan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-22(c)(2), (3)

Although a plaintiff’s statements about pain and other symptoms may not be rejected “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), here the ALJ considered other factors outlined in Section 404.1529(c)(3). Specifically, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s medications, course and history of treatment for his mental impairments, and his responses thereto. See id. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), (v).

Section 404.1529(c) requires a symptom evaluation that compares alleged limitations with the record and permits consideration of activities and other inconsistent evidence.

Roth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-27(c)

The Court is similarly unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ failed to identify inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s reported symptoms. (See Doc. 24 at 34). Rather, the ALJ provided ample examples of inconsistencies within the record. (Tr. at 73-74 (citing Tr. at 840, 1148, 1313, 963, 970, 496, 690, 720, 730, 739-41, 829, 856, 969, 1094, 1106, 1150, 1292-93, 329)).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ not merely to summarize symptom testimony but to analyze it and identify which allegations are credited or discounted.

Meiborg v. Saul · filed 2022-06-01

Although the ALJ provided an accurate summary of Plaintiff’s testimony, she did not analyze it or indicate what allegations she credited or discredited. The ALJ merely cites boilerplate language that Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.”

The boilerplate that a claimant’s symptoms are not “entirely consistent” with the evidence does not track Section 404.1529(a)’s reasonable-consistency standard and is sufficient only if followed by well-supported reasons.

Ngo v. Saul · filed 2022-06-29(a)

The Seventh Circuit has hammered away at this mantra and its predecessor over the years, to no avail. See, e.g., Mandrell v. Kijakazi, 25 F.4th 514 (7th Cir. 2022)(“. . . the common, but regrettably Delphic, observation . . . .”). It’s not even consistent – let alone “entirely consistent” with the Commissioner’s own regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)(“In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”). But it’s not going away any time soon; certainly not on the word of a magistrate judge. In any event, an ALJ can get away with the meaningless boilerplate if he goes on to provide well-supported reasons for his rejection of a plaintiff’s allegations.

The governing symptom standard is whether the allegations can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence; an unexplained finding that allegations are merely “not entirely” credible does not suffice.

Richards v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-07(a)

The correct standard the ALJ should have applied is whether Plaintiff’s allegations “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 CFR §404.1529(a). As the ALJ failed to find that Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms were not consistent with the evidence, or provide a full explanation of why credibility was lacking, remand is warranted.

Section 404.1529 requires reasonable consistency—not full support—between symptom reports and the evidence, and requires the ALJ to address the regulatory factors and explain which reports are accepted or rejected and why.

Lake v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-15(a), (c)(3)-(4)

The ALJ's statement and presumption that symptoms need to be "fully supported” is inconsistent with the governing regulations. Social Security regulations require an to evaluate a claimant's symptoms and determine “the extent to which [] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Aside from citing a legally incorrect “wholly” consistent standard, the ALJ also engaged in an impermissible sound-bite approach in discussing the pain management treatment course and critically failed to even discuss or acknowledge Plaintiff’s “chronic pain syndrome” diagnosis at step two or elsewhere in the decision. ... In this case, the ALJ failed to address many of the factors in the regulation and ruling for evaluating the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff’s pain reports including her daily activities, the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication, treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain or other symptoms, and other measures taken to relieve pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529 uses reasonable consistency with objective and other evidence, but “not entirely consistent” boilerplate is not reversible when the ALJ supplies a full explanation and does not actually impose a stricter standard.

Schuler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-26(a), (c)(4)

The correct standard is less rigorous: whether the allegations “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(a), 416.929(c)(4); see, e.g., Minger v. Berryhill, 307 F. Supp. 3d 865, 871 (N.D. Ill. 2018). Nonetheless, this boilerplate language is problematic only “when the ALJ substitutes it for a proper, full-bodied explanation of why credibility is lacking.” Hammerslough v. Berryhill, 758 F. App’x 534, 539 (7th Cir. 2019). Although this case is remanded on other grounds, the Court notes that the ALJ discussed her findings with reference to medical evidence (see AR 16-20), and it does not appear that the ALJ imposed a “not entirely consistent” standard.

Section 404.1529(c) permits boilerplate consistency language when it is followed by a full explanation using medical findings, activities, and other record evidence.

Thorpe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-28(c)

If the ALJ provided a full analysis of Mr. Thorpe’s subjective symptoms, then there is no error in using this boilerplate language. The question, then, is whether the ALJ properly considered Mr. Thorpe’s subjective symptoms. As discussed below, the ALJ did so here.

Section 404.1529(c) permits standard symptom-evaluation language only when the ALJ supports the resulting findings with substantial evidence and evaluates the evidence in context.

Bridger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-28(c)

Admittedly, this boilerplate language is ... omnipresent in these decisions, and its use is not objectionable if the ALJ supports the findings with substantial evidence. Here, the ALJ did not do that. ... Nor can the ALJ look at the evidence without context.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) require more than boilerplate and unsupported reference to “other evidence”; subjective allegations cannot be discounted solely because objective medical evidence does not fully support them.

Gilmore v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-09-11(c)(2)-(3)

Indeed, although the ALJ referenced “other evidence,” she did not specifically provide what that “other evidence” was. ... Based upon this review, the Court finds the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective allegations based upon her medical records. ... Accordingly, because the ALJ provided an insufficient basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective allegations, this case must be reversed and remanded.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to apply the relevant symptom factors to the evidence; reciting the two-step procedure followed only by boilerplate inconsistency language is insufficient.

Bishop v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)

While ALJ Flynn examined the evidence and outlined the proper procedure for evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective statements, he not only failed to mention any of the factors set forth in SSR 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), but also failed to apply those factors to the evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to apply relevant symptom factors to the evidence; boilerplate followed only by general references to normal examinations and mild imaging is insufficient.

Myers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-25(c)(3)

While the ALJ examined the evidence and outlined the proper procedure for evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective statements, she not only failed to mention any of the factors set forth in SSR 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), but also failed to apply those factors to the evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to identify the specific testimony rejected and explain what evidence undermines it; boilerplate plus a medical summary is insufficient.

Monks v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-09(c)

The ALJ’s decision here does not set forth any specific reasons or explanation as to why he rejected Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires application of relevant factors to the evidence; merely reciting them without explaining the consistency finding is insufficient.

Gibbs v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-01(c)(3)

Here, the ALJ cited to Soc. Sec. R. 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) at the beginning of step four without applying those factors to the evidence.

A boilerplate symptom finding is inadequate by itself under Section 404.1529, but it suffices when followed by a specific discussion of the claimant’s symptoms, treatment response, examinations, daily activities, and medical opinions.

JEWELL V. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-28

Of course, the single paragraph quoted above would be inadequate, if the ALJ went no further. Immediately after that paragraph, however, the ALJ specifically discussed Jewell’s representations as to her own symptoms. Id. He then discussed the evidence of record with respect to Jewell’s migraine headaches, lupus, fibromyalgia, and impairment of the right upper extremity, including complex regional pain syndrome, and back pain. Record at 20-23.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to affect symptom credibility only when the activities conflict with alleged limitations or involve transferable work functions for a substantial part of the day.

(SS) Herrick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-31(c)(3)(i)

Only if a claimant’s level of activities is inconsistent with her claimed limitations would activities of daily living have any bearing on the claimant’s credibility. ... There are two ways an ALJ may use daily activities for an adverse credibility finding. ... First, daily activities can form the basis of an adverse credibility determination if the claimant’s activity contradicts the claimant’s testimony. ... Second, “daily activities may be grounds for an adverse credibility finding ‘if a claimant is able to spend a substantial part of his day engaged in pursuits involving the performance of physical functions that are transferable to a work setting.’”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows an ALJ to discount symptom testimony based on daily activities when they indicate capacities transferable to work or contradict claims of total debilitation.

Longwill v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-10(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may discredit a claimant's testimony when he reports participation in everyday activities indicating capacities that are transferable to a work setting. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112-13; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to discount symptom testimony only when they demonstrate transferable work skills or contradict the alleged limitations.

King v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-12(c)(3)(i)

Activities of daily living can form the basis for an ALJ to discount a claimant’s testimony in two ways: (1) as evidence a claimant can work if the activities “meet the threshold for transferable work skills”; or (2) where the activities “contradict [a claimant’s] testimony.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007). The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ relying on part-time work to address qualifying evidence about the breaks and reclining the claimant needs and to link the symptom finding to substantial evidence.

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

Although the ALJ cited Plaintiff’s part-time work history in explaining the RFC determination, the ALJ did not address why he discounted Plaintiff’s allegations that she required frequent breaks and needs to be in a reclining position in order to complete a four-hour shift at her part-time job. ... As such, the ALJ had a duty to address objective medical evidence, including Dr. Paz’s range-of-motion findings, in weighing Plaintiff’s statements. The failure to do so is error, because the ALJ was required to consider all of the evidence in determining whether Plaintiff’s pain was disabling.

Sections 404.1529(a) and (c)(1) require an ALJ to explain why symptom evidence, such as a need for unscheduled bathroom breaks, does not warrant work-related limitations rather than merely summarize medical records.

Sharp v. Saul · filed 2022-03-29(a), (c)(1)

Notwithstanding this testimony, the RFC determination is devoid of any accommodation for Sharp’s need for breaks to manage his severe medical impairment. Thus, the ALJ appears to have rejected the testimony regarding the need for unscheduled breaks. The ALJ does not, however, discuss or otherwise provide any analysis of Sharp’s need for periodic bathroom breaks during the workday. ... Nothing in the ALJ’s discussion of these records, however, undermines Sharp’s testimony regarding his need for breaks while at work because of his nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea episodes.

Section 404.1529(a) requires a supported finding on alleged symptom-related unscheduled restroom breaks rather than equating bathroom proximity with permission to stop work.

Coffman v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-25(a)

On remand, the ALJ should make a finding regarding Plaintiff's purported need for frequent, unscheduled breaks of unknown duration and either address the limitation in the RFC finding or provide a good reason supported by substantial evidence for omitting the limitation.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of any work activity, including part-time work, when evaluating whether symptom allegations are consistent with claimed disability.

Bourquin v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-26(c)(3)(i)

First, an ALJ may consider a claimant’s activities when evaluating the reliability of their symptom allegations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). Plaintiff’s part-time work is one such activity. It does not matter that Plaintiff only maintained a part-time work schedule because “an ALJ may consider any work activity, including part-time work, in determining whether a claimant is disabled.” ... Accordingly, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s ability to work part-time was inconsistent with his claims that his mental impairments were debilitating.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of a claimant's work record, including accommodated or part-time work, when assessing the severity of reported symptoms.

Resco v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-11(c)(3)

When considering evidence, an ALJ may consider information regarding claimant’s work record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). Work history, including part-time work, is a valid consideration in assessing the severity of symptoms. ... The ALJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence.

Under § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), limited part-time volunteer work may undermine allegations of total disability even when it does not establish transferable skills or full-time work capacity.

Hays v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-30(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ reasonably cited Plaintiff’s part-time work as further evidence that his symptoms were not completely disabling. ... The ALJ noted that Plaintiff had volunteered writing code since at least the amended alleged onset date, and had volunteered with students learning to code (at least initially) three to four days a week for a couple hours a day. ... Even when activities do not show transferable work skills or an ability to work full-time, they “may be grounds for discrediting the claimant’s testimony to the extent that they contradict claims of a totally debilitating impairment.” ... The ALJ reasonably found that Plaintiff’s part-time volunteer work, while limited, undermined Plaintiff’s allegations of disability. ... This was therefore another clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence, for the ALJ to cite to discount Plaintiff’s symptom allegations.

Section 404.1529 governs symptom evaluation, which is a separate inquiry from the function-by-function assessment required to determine residual functional capacity.

Bell v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-01

Third, after expressing Plaintiff’s RFC, ALJ Brinkley stated that this finding was based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, and SSR 16–3p, which are the regulations and concomitant SSR that address the process an ALJ uses to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms. ... For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that ALJ Brinkley applied an incorrect framework when assessing Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ determining RFC to assess whether medically determinable impairments could produce alleged symptoms and whether their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects are consistent with the record.

Cuckovic v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-13(a)

Thus, in making his or her determination of a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must necessarily evaluate the medical opinions in the record and assess the claimant’s subjective allegations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927, (2021); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... Here, in assessing Claimant’s RFC, ALJ Eastham considered whether Claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce his allegedly disabling symptoms and whether Claimant’s allegations about the intensity, persistence and limiting effects were consistent with the record.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ determining RFC to assess the claimant's subjective allegations along with medical opinions and the rest of the case record.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-09(a)

Thus, in making the RFC determination Administrative Law Judges must necessarily evaluate the persuasiveness of the medical source statements and prior administrative medical findings in the record as well as assess the claimant’s subjective allegations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 404.1529(a).

A symptom evaluation under § 404.1529 is separate from the function-by-function residual-functional-capacity assessment and cannot substitute for that analysis.

Smith v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-15(c)

The “function-by-function assessment is not the same as an assessment of the intensity and persistence of PlaintifP s symptoms, the latter of which is outlined in SSRs 96-7 and 16-3p.” ... The Fourth Circuit has explained that “a claimant’s symptoms, and the extent to which the alleged severity of those symptoms is supported by the record, is relevant to the RFC determination. ... But an RFC assessment is a separate and distinct inquiry from a symptom evaluation[.]” ... Returning to the instant case, it is clear from the ALJ’s decision that a proper function-by-function analysis was not conducted.

Section 404.1529(a) makes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how symptoms affect the claimant relevant to the RFC assessment.

Fedor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-17(a)

Relevant evidence includes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also SSR 96-8p. ... In sum, the evidence would indicate that the symptom limitations relevant to these impairments are not as severe as alleged. ... This reasoning appropriately follows agency regulations and provides sufficient analysis; my review confirms the ALJ provided substantial evidence in support.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iii) requires consideration of factors that aggravate a claimant’s symptoms, including the effects of part-time work.

Linsmeier v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-18(c)(3)(iii)

Also, the evidence that Linsmeier left work early once or twice a week and spent hours recovering after each shift suggests that her limited part-time job aggravated her symptoms, see § 404.1529(c)(3)(iii), another factor the ALJ did not address.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of precipitating and aggravating factors in symptom evaluation.

True v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

The ALJ should have engaged in a stress evaluation.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iii) permits an ALJ to consider alcohol intoxication as an aggravating factor when evaluating the intensity and persistence of mental-health symptoms.

Perkins v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-22(c)(3)(iii)

When evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, the following factors should be considered: ... (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; ... SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7–8; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Relatedly, the ALJ observed Plaintiff’s attempted suicide at the alleged onset date occurred in the context of alcohol intoxication; therefore, alcohol was an aggravating factor to Plaintiff’s symptoms. ... The Court finds the ALJ cited to substantial evidence to support her conclusion that Plaintiff’s symptom testimony was inconsistent with the evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to address supported precipitating and aggravating factors such as workplace stress when evaluating symptom severity and work capacity.

Perry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

But, nowhere in the Decision does the ALJ address the stress issue, see Tr. at 27-36, which certainly can be considered an aggravating factor in Plaintiff’s condition, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Subsection (c)(3)(iii) requires an ALJ to consider and discuss record evidence of a factor that precipitated or aggravated the claimant’s symptoms.

Dominguez-McDonough v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)(iii)

To the extent that Plaintiff has presented evidence that the death of her husband was a factor that precipitated and aggravated her symptoms, the ALJ was required both to consider and to discuss that factor. It is not immediately clear to the Court whether any such evidence was previously presented to the ALJ,9 however, as such evidence was included in Plaintiff’s submission to the Appeals Council and is now part of the record, see R. at 39, 40, 442–49, on remand the ALJ must consider and discuss it.

Symptom-related limitations consistent with the evidence must be evaluated holistically and longitudinally, and a claimant’s basic pastimes do not by themselves negate disability allegations.

McAdams v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-06(c)(3)

“Because symptoms, such as pain, as subjective and difficult to quantify, any symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions that medical sources or nonmedical sources report, which can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, will be taken into account . . . in reaching a conclusion as to whether [a claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(3). ... Despite instances of improvement, the entire record should be considered for a holistic, longitudinal assessment of the claimant’s impairment. Again, this Court emphasizes that an individual’s involvement in basic pastimes should not be a negating factor to their disability analysis.

Whether symptoms wax and wane is relevant to their duration and frequency under § 404.1529(c)(3).

Ritchie v. Saul · filed 2022-09-26(c)(3)

Plaintiff takes further issue with the ALJ’s assessment that his symptoms waxed and waned. Plaintiff argues that the fact that his symptoms waxed and waned is irrelevant to his disability determination. But the fact that symptoms may be sporadic is certainly relevant to the duration and frequncy of a claimant’s symptoms. See SSR 16-3p; 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 404.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c) requires examination of the entire case record and forbids using a few isolated treatment notes or absent objective corroboration to disregard consistent longitudinal symptom reports.

Chester v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-26(b)-(c)

In making that determination, the ALJ must “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” ... “At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled.” ... Thus, the ALJ must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. ... Here, the ALJ’s analysis of Tabitha’s subjective reports of her symptoms and limitations relies upon isolated statements in a few treatment notes, which are contradicted by numerous reports and complaints to other treatment providers that are not discussed in the ALJ’s decision. ... The ALJ’s reliance on a few isolated notes in the record, which are contradicted by other significant evidence in the record, is insufficient.

Section 404.1529’s symptom-consistency determination for a closed disability period may not be based on treatment notes created after that period.

Schautteet v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-26(c)

If the SSA determines that an underlying physical or mental impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, the SSA evaluates the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3-9. ... For several reasons, the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Initially, the ALJ relied upon evidence created after the closed period, including treatment notes from May and August 2020 (Tr. 17-18, 538, 558-62). The issue before the ALJ involved whether Plaintiff was disabled from January 6, 2018, through April 4, 2020, not any time thereafter. The ALJ thus should not have relied on treatment notes outside of the closed period in considering Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

When no treatment records cover a short alleged disability period, the ALJ may reasonably consider treatment records from shortly before and after that period to evaluate symptoms.

Castaneda v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-09-15(c)

Here, the period of disability alleged is only two months, November and December 2020. Further complicating the issue is the fact there is no record of treatment during that period. Therefore, the ALJ reasonably considered treatment records before and shortly after that period.

An ALJ evaluating cyclical mental symptoms must address material reports describing the cycles and build a logical bridge between those symptoms and the restrictions intended to accommodate them.

Tippmann · filed 2025-11-05(c)(3)

The logical bridge between the cycling moods and the conclusion that they are accommodated by simple work, a static environment, and no strict or rigid production quotas is missing. Remand is required for a new evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ evaluating reported symptoms to consider objective findings, inconsistent statements, and clinical signs suggesting symptom exaggeration.

Hamadeh v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-07(c)(2), (c)(4)

As a result, it was reasonable for the ALJ to consider all of Plaintiff’s inconsistent ... statements and signs, along with the positive Waddell’s signs, in concluding that Plaintiff's allegations regarding her limitations were not entirely reliable.

Subsection (c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects to consider observations by agency employees and other persons as part of all the evidence.

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

The Commissioner appears to have erroneously cited 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4), where it is § 404.1529(c)(3) which supports this proposition. See § 404.1529(c)(3) (noting that when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, the ALJ considers “all evidence” including “observations by [Commissioner] employees and other persons”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) supports deference to an ALJ’s determination about subjective complaints when the ALJ considers the relevant factors and claimant testimony and observes the claimant’s demeanor.

BRYANT · filed 2026-06-12(c)(3)

Where the ALJ ... has considered the relevant factors, ... see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), and ... heard the claimant’s testimony and ... observed his or her demeanor, the ... Court will defer to the ALJ’s ... determination regarding those ... subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider observations of a claimant’s hearing demeanor when evaluating reported symptoms.

Lowe v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-31(c)(3)

However, such observations are explicitly permissible under the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (“We will consider . . . observations by our employees and other persons” when evaluating testimony); Matney on Behalf of Matney, 981 F.2d at 1020 (when assessing symptom testimony, the ALJ may consider the claimant’s “demeanor and appearance at the hearing”).

An ALJ may credit symptom allegations in part after identifying record inconsistencies; doing so is ordinary evidence weighing rather than cherry-picking.

Samsel v. Saul · filed 2022-09-09

The ALJ evaluated the record and found inconsistencies that led her, overall, to credit Plaintiff’s allegations in part but not in their entirety, which is typical evidence weighing, not cherry picking.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to assess symptom statements against the entire record, including medical evidence, daily activities, medication, treatment, and inconsistencies, while crediting allegations that the evidence supports.

SMITH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-12-27(a), (c), (c)(4)

As an initial matter, the ALJ did credit Theresa S.’s allegations where they were consistent with the medical evidence in the record. The ALJ found that “the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms.” (R. 19.) However, the ALJ appropriately considered the entire body of evidence before him and noted where he found inconsistencies between the medical record and the “intensity, persistence and limiting effects” of Theresa S.’s alleged symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to partially credit symptom testimony after comparing it with conflicting medical and other record evidence.

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

I cannot now reweigh the evidence or overturn the ALJ’s reasonable resolution of conflicting evidence. I thus find that the ALJ’s RFC determination and decision not to credit entirely Plaintiff’s hearing testimony is supported by substantial evidence.

Under Section 404.1529(a), symptom statements alone do not establish disability, and an ALJ need only account for pain limitations supported by the record.

Wilson v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-31(a)

In conclusion, the Court finds that the ALJ properly accounted for Plaintiff’s pain limitations to the extent that they were supported in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled”).

Valid reasons supported by the record, including improvement with treatment and inconsistent objective findings, can sustain a symptom determination even when a separate daily-activities rationale is invalid.

Diaz-Babauta v. O' Malley · filed 2025-08-21(c)(3)

Thus, although one reason the ALJ provided was not supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ provided two additional clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, to discount Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

A symptom determination may stand despite some invalid reasons when the remaining reasons—including work activity, inconsistent statements, daily activities, and medical evidence—are sufficiently specific, clear, and convincing.

Voskanyan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-29(c)(4)

In total, the ALJ reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom allegations as sufficiently specific, clear, and convincing. Although as set forth above, the Court does not concur with all of them, such is not required.

An inaccurate articulation in a symptom analysis is harmless when the decision as a whole clearly gives other supported reasons and the court is confident the ALJ would reach the same result on remand.

North v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-30(c)

When looking at the ALJ’s opinion as a whole, the Court is clear as to the reasons why the ALJ was not persuaded by Claimant’s subjective complaints and also is convinced that the ALJ would come to the same decision if the case were remanded.

An ALJ may partially discount gastrointestinal symptom allegations while crediting supported limitations through ready restroom access and off-task time when the detailed record substantially supports that balance.

NATTER · filed 2025-11-06(c)

In the view of this Court, this record provides substantial support for the ALJ’s decision to discount, in part, Plaintiff’s subjective statements as inconsistent with the record evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires a two-step process and evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence to determine work-capacity effects.

Haines v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-15(c)(1)

When a claimant alleges symptoms of disabling severity, the ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating these symptoms. See e.g., Massey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 409 F. App’x 917, 921 (6th Cir. 2011). First, the ALJ must determine if there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms. Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step inquiry that first identifies an impairment capable of producing symptoms and then evaluates symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Mohnsam v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-11(a), (c)

A two-step inquiry applies to symptom evaluation. The ALJ first determines if the record contains objective medical evidence of an underlying medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires a two-step process and evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence to determine work-capacity limits.

Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-16(c)(1)

When a claimant alleges symptoms of disabling severity, an ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating those symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529; 416.929(c)(1); SSR 16–3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at*10 (Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step process that first identifies an impairment capable of producing symptoms and then evaluates symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects.

MEYER v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-03-11(b)-(c)

ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on the ability to work.

KLOTZ v. SAUL · filed 2023-11-21(b), (c)

Social Security regulations require a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: (1) a determination as to whether there is objective evidence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged; and (2) an evaluation of the intensity and persistence of the pain or symptoms and the extent to which they affect the individual’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) & (c); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3-4 (Mar. 16, 2016).

Under § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3), once an impairment could reasonably produce alleged symptoms, the ALJ evaluates the claimant's statements against objective medical and other record evidence.

Soria v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-27(c)(2)-(3)

Then, provided no evidence of malingering exists, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s statements in the context of the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis that first identifies an impairment reasonably capable of producing the alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and work-related effects using all available evidence.

Bryan v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-30(b), (c)

SSA regulations prescribe a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s statements about their mental impairments. Step one asks “whether there is an underlying medically determinable . . . mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [the] individual’s symptoms.” SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). If such an impairment is established at step one, step two requires the ALJ to “evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities.” Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then evaluate the symptoms' intensity, persistence, and work-related limitations.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-30(c)(1)

Accordingly, the ALJ applied the analytical rubric stated above in a manner that articulated the findings with sufficient precision and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce the claimant's symptoms and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on work capacity.

Grossman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-09(c)(1)

First, the ALJ must determine if there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms. Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). ... There is no error.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider all symptoms and then determine whether an impairment could produce them and how their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects restrict functioning.

Binner v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-04(a), (b), (c)

At this intermediate step, the ALJ considers “all [the claimant’s] symptoms . . . and the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). This involves a two-step inquiry where the ALJ must (1) determine whether an underlying medically determinable mental impairment or impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms and, if so, (2) evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functional limitations.

Section 404.1529 requires symptoms to result from a medically demonstrated impairment and then requires their intensity, persistence, and functional effects to be evaluated against the entire case record.

Stelzman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-05(b), (c)

First, symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, will only be considered to affect a claimant's ability to perform work activities if such symptoms result from an underlying physical or mental impairment that has been demonstrated to exist by medical signs or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16–3p. During the second step of this credibility assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated based on the ALJ's evaluation of the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p.

Section 404.1529 requires symptoms to arise from a medically demonstrated impairment and then requires their intensity, persistence, and functional effects to be evaluated against the entire record.

Lorenzana v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-06(b), (c)

First, symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, will only be considered to affect a claimant's ability to perform work activities if such symptoms result from an underlying physical or mental impairment that has been demonstrated to exist by medical signs or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16–3p. During the second step of this credibility assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated based on the ALJ's evaluation of the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to identify objective evidence of an impairment that could produce the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and work-related effects using the entire record.

Powers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-08(b), (c)

First, the ALJ looks for objective medical evidence showing a condition that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, such as pain. ... Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s ability to work.

Section 404.1529 establishes a two-prong framework addressing whether an impairment could produce symptoms and how symptom intensity and persistence limit work.

Lester v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-21

The ALJ evaluates a claimant’s symptoms through a two-prong framework. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c) requires a two-step analysis of whether an impairment could produce symptoms and whether the symptom testimony should be credited.

Riven Nelson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-21(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to identify an impairment capable of producing symptoms and then to evaluate symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Canty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-21(b), (c)

Rather, consideration of a claimant’s symptoms involves a two-step process, wherein the ALJ first considers whether an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment exists that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, such as pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3–9.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step analysis beginning with whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms.

Hanson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-22(b)

The determination of whether or not to accept a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms requires a two-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... First, the ALJ must determine whether or not there is a medically determinable impairment that reasonably could be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of whether an impairment could cause symptoms and how their intensity and persistence limit work activities.

Nieves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-22(b), (c)

Consideration of a claimant’s symptoms therefore involves a two-step process, wherein the ALJ first considers whether an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment exists that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, such as pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3-9.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether an impairment could produce alleged symptoms and then to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and work-related effects.

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-20(b), (c)

Consideration of a claimant’s symptoms thus involves a two-step process, wherein the ALJ first considers whether an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment exists that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, such as pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3-9.