20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether an impairment could cause alleged symptoms and then to evaluate all evidence of their intensity and persistence.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-29(b), (c)

If the claimant has presented such evidence, the ALJ proceeds to consider all of the evidence presented to determine the persistence and intensity of the alleged symptoms. Id. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and work-related limits using the full record and the regulatory factors.

Cook v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-03-30(a)-(c)

Once an underlying physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, such as pain, is established, the ALJ must then consider all of the evidence in the record to evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work. ... In doing so, SSR 16-3p and the regulations require an ALJ to consider certain factors, including: (1) daily activities; (2) 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; (5) treatment, other than medication, to relieve pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom inquiry: first determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce the symptoms, then evaluate their intensity and persistence to determine their work-related limits.

Keen v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(b)-(c)

Consideration of a claimant’s symptoms thus involves a two-step process, wherein the Commissioner 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. ... If the Commissioner determines that an underlying physical or mental impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, the Commissioner 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.

An ALJ must first identify an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms and then evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the record.

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

In considering a claimant’s symptoms that allegedly limit his ability to work, the ALJ must first determine whether there is an underlying “medically determinable” physical or mental impairment(s) —i.e., an impairment(s) that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques — that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). If such an impairment is found, the ALJ must next 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. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step pain inquiry: determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged pain, then evaluate its intensity and persistence using all available evidence and test the symptom statements for consistency with the record.

Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)

To that end, the Commissioner has established a two-step inquiry to evaluate a claimant's contentions of pain. See Social Security Ruling 96–7P, 1996 WL 374186 (S.S.A.); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a “medically determinable impairment[ ] that could reasonably be expected to produce” the pain alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1); see SSR 96–7P. 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 pain contentions are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to use a two-step process when evaluating allegedly disabling symptoms, and noncompliance warrants reversal when the resulting findings lack substantial evidence.

McFerran v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30

The ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s symptom severity does not comply with the applicable rules and regulations, and the ALJ’s findings are unsupported by substantial evidence. For both of these reasons, the Court reverses and remands the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ was required to comply with the applicable Social Security regulation when evaluating Plaintiff’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Also, because Plaintiff alleged symptoms of disabling severity, the ALJ was required to use a two-step process for evaluating those symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis: objective evidence must first establish a condition that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, after which the adjudicator evaluates the symptoms' intensity, persistence, and limiting effects on the ability to work.

Moore v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-26(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 treats fatigue as a symptom and requires a two-step inquiry into whether an impairment could reasonably produce it and, if so, how its intensity and persistence limit the claimant’s ability to work.

Chavez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-26(b)-(c)(1), (d)(1)

see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(1) (describing fatigue as a symptom). ... In evaluating symptoms in disability claims, the ALJ is required to undertake a two-step analysis: (1) determine whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms, such as ... pain; and (2) evaluate the intensity and persistence of claimant’s symptoms to determine how these symptoms limit a claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)-(c)(1). ... In sum, the Court finds no error with the ALJ’s discussion of Mr. Chavez’s obesity and in combination with his impairments when assessing Mr. Chavez’s RFC. The Court further finds that the ALJ adequately addressed Mr. Chavez’s alleged symptom of fatigue.

Section 404.1529 requires objective evidence to corroborate subjective complaints and a two-step evaluation that considers both objective evidence and the listed nonobjective factors when determining symptom intensity, persistence, and work-related effects.

ABDULA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-05-09(a), (c), (c)(3)

Instead, objective medical evidence must corroborate a claimant’s subjective complaints. Prokopick v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 272 F. App’x 196, 199 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)). Specifically, an ALJ must follow a two-step process in evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints. ... 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.” ... “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[.]” ... 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).

Section 404.1529 is consistent with the Eleventh Circuit pain standard, and an ALJ need not recite that standard verbatim when the decision applies its two-step substance.

Michael v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-06-02

The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that the Commissioner’s regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 are consistent with the Eleventh Circuit’s pain standard, and the ALJ need not directly reference the standard verbatim as long as it is utilized in application. ... The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s medical evidence, clearly articulated his findings, and took the evidence into account (along with the medical opinions and prior administrative findings in the record) in making his decision.

Section 404.1529 requires first identifying a medically determinable impairment and then evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects to determine the resulting functional limitations.

Thompson v. Saul · filed 2023-06-13

First, the ALJ is required to determine whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment; and 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 functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis: first determine whether objective evidence establishes an impairment reasonably expected to produce the symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects on the ability to work.

Serrianni v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-29(a)-(c)

In general, the ALJ must employ a two-step analysis to evaluate the plaintiffs reported symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ must determine whether, based on the objective medical evidence, a plaintiffs medical impairments “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. § 404.1529(a). Second, if the medical evidence establishes the existence of such impairments, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to do work.

An ALJ must consider all symptoms and other evidence, apply the two-step process, and articulate explicit and adequate reasons when the record does not support subjective testimony.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-28(b)–(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. When the ALJ does not find the claimant’s subjective testimony supported by the record, the ALJ must articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so.

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

Edminster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-07

The ALJ must employ a two-step analysis to evaluate a plaintiffs reported symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ must determine whether, based on the objective medical evidence, a plaintiffs medical impairments “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.”

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step whole-record assessment of symptom-producing impairments and the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of resulting symptoms.

Williams v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-12(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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)–(c). ... It is clear from a review of the record that the ALJ fully accounted for Williams’ migraine headaches, including whether they would cause him off-task time or light sensitivity, when rendering the RFC determination.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation that first asks whether an impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then assesses the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Garcia v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-13(c)

In accordance with regulations, the two-step process for evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective statements requires: (1) determining whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment “that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms,” and (2) once such an impairment has been shown, “evaluat[ing] 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.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step process addressing an impairment capable of producing symptoms and then their intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Hutcheson v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-04-16

To evaluate a claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ uses the two-step process set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and described in Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce alleged symptoms and then to evaluate consistency with objective and other evidence.

Blanford v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-06-07(a)–(b)

Specifically, “the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which [the plaintiff’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether an impairment could cause alleged symptoms and then to assess intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the entire record.

Graham-Babcock v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-06-17(b)–(c)

The Social Security Rulings and Regulations provide a framework for evaluating the severity of a claimant's reported symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; SSR 16–3p. Thus, the ALJ must follow a two-step process: first, the ALJ must determine whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the symptoms alleged; and second, the ALJ must evaluate the alleged symptoms considering the entire administrative record. SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis: first determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce the symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and work-related limits.

Phetteplace v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2024-08-29(a), (c)

This involves a two-step process. 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; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. “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. . . .” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3.

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step symptom analysis that first asks whether objective evidence shows an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms and then evaluates their claimed severity.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-04

“To determine whether a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms is credible, an ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. 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. at 1036 (quoting Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 344). Next, if “there is no affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of [his] symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281, 1283-84 (9th Cir. 1996)); see also Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2014); Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step inquiry into whether an impairment could produce alleged symptoms and how their intensity and persistence limit work, using all available medical and nonmedical evidence.

Elick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-04(c)(1), (c)(3)

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(c)(1); SSR 16–3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at*10 (Oct. 25, 2017). 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). To evaluate the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms,” the ALJ must consider all available evidence from medical and nonmedical sources including medical opinions.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects; an ALJ may sufficiently make the first finding implicitly by proceeding to the second step and treating the relevant impairments as severe.

Bascio v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-18(b), (c)

In considering the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must follow a two-step process in which it must first be determined whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment—i.e., an impairment that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques—that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. 404 § 1529; SSR 16-3p. Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms has been shown, 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 functional limitations. Id. ... Although the ALJ did not specifically state that Bascio’s symptoms of inability to concentrate and mental confusion could result from his medically determined impairments, it is clear that the ALJ made this determination because he noted that the impairments of stroke and coronary artery disease with triple bypass were “severe” and affected his functional capacity.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: the ALJ first determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms and then assesses the symptoms’ intensity and persistence.

Osman v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-25

A symptom evaluation requires two steps: “[f]irst, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a ‘medically determinable impairment’ that could reasonably be expected to cause the claimant’s alleged symptoms,” and then second, “the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms.” , 983 F.3d at 95 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16–3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016)). ... In sum, the ALJ appropriately analyzed Plaintiff’s statements about the severity of his symptoms by following the two-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 1529 and expounded upon in SSR 16–3p, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms: first deciding whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the symptoms, and then assessing their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Rice v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-10-01(b), (c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must apply the two-step evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. See Arakas v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16-3p. Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine their effect on claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16-3p. ... The ALJ properly evaluated the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints by applying the two-step analysis, concluding that while the medically determinable impairments could cause the alleged symptoms, those symptoms were not consistent with the evidence in the Plaintiff’s medical record.

Section 404.1529(a) and (b) require a two-step symptom evaluation: first asking whether the medically determinable impairments could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, and then assessing how the symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to work in light of the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Lighthall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-21(a), (b)

The evaluation of symptoms involves a two-step process. First, the ALJ must determine, based upon the objective medical evidence, whether the medical impairments “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged …” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b); 416.929(a), (b). If so, at the second step, the ALJ must consider “‘the extent to which [the claimant’s] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the [objective medical evidence] and other evidence to decide how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [her] ability to work.’” Barry v. Colvin, 606 F. App’x 621, 623 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing inter alia 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Genier, 606 F.3d at 49) (alterations in original).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms: the adjudicator first identifies medically determinable impairments that could reasonably cause the symptoms, then evaluates whether the claimed intensity, persistence, and limiting effects are consistent with the record.

Gentry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-12

The undersigned finds that the ALJ complied with the two-step process required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p. Specifically, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has medically determinable impairments (severe impairments of lumbar spine sprain and strain and left rotator cuff tear, and nonsevere impairments of hip arthritis, status post left wrist and left arm fracture, lumbar degenerative disc disease, depression, and anxiety) that could reasonably cause some of the alleged symptoms. (Decision, Doc. No. 6-15 at PageID 1190-92.) The ALJ then considered the evidence in the record and found that Plaintiff’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence of record. (Id. at PageID 1196-97.) Because the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, the Court should affirm the ALJ’s decision.

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step symptom evaluation: the claimant must show a medically determinable impairment capable of causing the symptoms, after which their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects are evaluated against the entire record.

Burd v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-24(b), (c)

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.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ evaluating allegedly disabling symptoms to first determine whether an underlying medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the symptoms, and then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effect on the claimant’s capacity for work.

Blody v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-25(c)(1)

When a claimant alleges symptoms of disabling severity, an ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating these symptoms. ... 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). ... After a careful review, the Court finds that the ALJ complied with agency regulations in evaluating Ms. Blody’s subjective statements about the symptoms and limiting effect of her conditions and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination of Ms. Blody’s RFC.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ, after finding that an impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work using all objective and subjective evidence.

Grant v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-03-20(c)(1), (c)(3)-(4)

Further, if the claimant establishes he has an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce his alleged symptoms, then the intensity and persistence of his alleged symptoms and their effect on his ability to work must be evaluated. ... Thus, contrary to Grant’s assertions, the ALJ’s opinion does reflect that she considered all his testimony along with the medical evidence in making her RFC determination.

After finding a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, § 404.1529 requires the ALJ to assess their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work using all available evidence; objective evidence is not required at this second step.

Allison v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-20(b), (c)(1)

Second, “after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled.” Id. The ALJ must consider all available evidence in this determination, including objective medical evidence, an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms, and medical opinions and statements from others. Id. The claimant does not need to produce objective evidence to satisfy this second prong. Id. Here, the ALJ followed the two-step process. At the first step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could lead to the alleged symptoms. (R. at 23.) At the second step, and “[a]fter careful consideration of the evidence,” the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s 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 for the reasons explained in this decision.” (R. at 23-24.)

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis: the ALJ first determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and work-related effects using all available medical and nonmedical evidence.

Sensenig v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-24(b), (c)(1)

[A]n ALJ must conduct a two-step process in analyzing a claimant's pain or other symptoms. First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has “a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce [the claimant's] symptoms, such as pain.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Second, when the record shows that the claimant has a “medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [the claimant's] symptoms,” the ALJ “must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant's] symptoms” to determine how the symptoms limit the claimant's capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). “In evaluating the intensity and persistence” of a claimant's symptoms, the ALJ considers “all of the available evidence” from “medical sources and nonmedical sources” to determine how the symptoms affect the claimant. (Id.).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis: the ALJ first determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then assesses their intensity, persistence, and effect on the ability to work, without rejecting subjective complaints solely for lack of objective corroboration.

Janey v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-26(b)-(c)

When evaluating subjective complaints, ALJs use the two-step analytical process set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929 and described in SSR 16-3p. See Oakes v. Kijakazi, 70 F.4th 207, 215 (4th Cir. 2023) (citing Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020)). Step one requires an ALJ to determine if a “medically determinable impairment” exists that could “reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.”3 Id. (quoting Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95). At step two, the ALJ assesses “the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled.” Id. (quoting Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95). Because “disability benefits can be awarded on the sole basis of an objective impairment and derivative subjective pain,” a claimant may “rely exclusively on subjective evidence” at step two. Id. (quoting Arakas, 983 F.3d at 96).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether objective medical evidence shows an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and, if so, to assess the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects from the entire record without requiring objective proof at the second step.

Albert v. Bisignano · filed 2025-05-13(b), (c)

Under the regulations implementing the Social Security Act, an ALJ follows a two-step analysis when considering a claimant’s subjective statements about impairments and symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ looks for objective medical evidence showing a condition that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, such as pain. 2016 WL 1119029, at *3; § 404.1529(b). If the claimant clears this threshold, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine how much they limit the claimant's ability to work. Id. In making that determination, the ALJ considers 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. at *4. ... No objective evidence is required in assessing the alleged symptoms at the second step. Oakes v. Kijakazi, 70 F.4th 207, 215 (4th Cir. 2023) (citing Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of symptom testimony: the claimant must first produce objective medical evidence of an impairment capable of causing the alleged symptoms, and, absent evidence of malingering, the ALJ must then give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting the testimony.

Briggs v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-14(b), (c)

Determining the credibility of a claimant’s symptom testimony requires the ALJ to undertake a two-step process of analysis. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th Cir. 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. At the first step, the claimant must produce objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). At the second step, if there is no affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting the claimant’s testimony. Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 488-89 (9th Cir. 2015); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... Here, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff “alleges disabling impairments but medical findings do not support the extent of limitation[s] alleged[.]” (Tr. 1763.) But because no other identifiable reason was articulated, the ALJ did not provide clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to reject plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ evaluating allegedly disabling symptoms first to identify a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably cause them and then to assess their intensity and persistence to determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

Price v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-03(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). 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).

Sections 404.1529(b) and (c) require an ALJ first to determine whether medical signs or laboratory findings establish an impairment that could cause the alleged symptoms and then to assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects from the entire record.

Ulshafer v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-06-04(b), (c)

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.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: the adjudicator determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms and then evaluates whether the claimant’s statements about their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects are consistent with the medical and other evidence.

Coleman v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-06-05(b)–(c)

Additionally, it is clear the ALJ applied the Eleventh Circuit’s pain standard. After explaining the pain standard, with citations to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, the ALJ considered Ms. Coleman’s testimony about her symptoms. See R. 61. The ALJ determined that Ms. Coleman’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause some of the alleged symptoms; however, [Ms. Coleman’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.” R. 62. ... After a thorough review of the ALJ opinion and the evidentiary record, the court concludes that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and substantial evidence supports her decision in crafting Ms. Coleman’s residual functional capacity, applying the pain standard, and considering opinion evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis: the ALJ first asks whether objective medical evidence shows a condition that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Bell v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-03(b)

Under the regulations implementing the Social Security Act, an ALJ follows a two-step analysis when considering a claimant’s subjective statements about impairments and symptoms. SSR 16–3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ looks for objective medical evidence showing a condition that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, such as pain. 2016 WL 1119029, at *3; § 404.1529(b). If the claimant clears this threshold, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine how much they limit the claimant’s ability to work. Id.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: the ALJ first determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then evaluates the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Metz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)

A two-step process is used to evaluate an individual’s symptoms. (20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, SSR 16-3P (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017), 2017 WL 5180304.) At step one, the ALJ determines whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms. (Id.; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *3.) At step two, the ALJ evaluates the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms. (Id. at *4.)

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: first, determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms; second, assess their intensity and persistence and resulting work limitations.

Lynds v. O'Malley · filed 2025-07-31(b), (c)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective description of their symptoms, an ALJ undertakes a two-step process. ... At the first step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. ... If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ ... evaluates “the intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms” to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the individual’s ability to do basic work activities.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis and permits discounting subjective complaints when detailed medical and record evidence substantially supports their inconsistency.

COVINGTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-28(a), (c)(3)

Here, the ALJ followed this two-step evaluation process. The ALJ expressly considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. R. 48–51. The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause symptoms, but 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.” R. 51. As previously discussed, the ALJ detailed years of medical evidence and record testimony to support his findings. R. 48–51. 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.

Subsections (b) and (c) require a two-step symptom analysis that first identifies an impairment reasonably capable of producing the alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and effect on work without demanding objective proof of the pain itself.

Horner v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2022-01-13(b)-(c)

An ALJ properly analyzes subjective complaints by using a two-part test. See Craig, 76 F.3d at 594-95 (discussing the two-part framework used in the Fourth Circuit). First, the ALJ must assess the objective medical evidence and determine whether the plaintiff has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4 (2016). Second, and if the ALJ finds a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ assesses the plaintiff's symptoms to determine how the symptoms’ intensity and persistence affect the plaintiff's ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). At the second step, “there need not be objective evidence of the pain itself or its intensity.”

Subsections (b) and (c) require a two-step symptom evaluation that first identifies an impairment reasonably capable of producing the alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and effect on work using the listed factors.

CONROY v. SAUL · filed 2022-03-21(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 it affects the individual’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(b). The ALJ is required to consider the objective evidence of record, as well as the plaintiff’s subjective testimony. See S.S.R. 16-3p, 2016 WL 1237954. In evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a plaintiff’s symptoms, the following factors should be considered by the ALJ: (1) the individual’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; (5) treatment other than medications for relief of symptoms; (6) any measures other than treatment used to relieve symptoms, and (7) any other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) is satisfied when an ALJ applies the two-step process, specifically considers the claimant’s complaints, and explains from years of medical evidence and testimony why alleged limitations exceed those supported by the record.

GONZALEZ-BONET v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-03-29(c)(3)

Here, the ALJ followed this two-step evaluation process. The ALJ specifically considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, R. 18–23, and found that, although Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause symptoms, her 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.” R. 19. As previously discussed, the ALJ detailed years of medical evidence and ... record testimony to support her findings. R. 19–23.

Subsections (b) and (c) require a two-step process that first identifies an impairment capable of producing alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the entire record.

Feather v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-29(b)-(c)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective allegations of pain or other symptoms, an ALJ utilizes a two-step process. Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2 (revised Oct. 25, 2017). First, the ALJ must determine whether there is a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. Id. at *3; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b). A claimant cannot be found to be “disabled based on alleged symptoms alone.” Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4. 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.

Subsections (b) and (c)(3) require a two-step symptom analysis that first identifies an impairment capable of causing the symptoms and then considers the claimant’s statements, daily activities, symptom descriptions, treatment, and all other available evidence.

Ingold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-07(b), (c)(3)

In evaluating a claimant's subjective complaints such as pain or fatigue, the ALJ employs a two-step process, see Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96–7p, 1996 WL 374186 (“Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements”). “First, there must be objective medical evidence showing ‘the existence of a medical impairment(s) which results from anatomical, physiological or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.’” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589, 594–95 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(b)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). If the first step is satisfied, as it was in this case, the ALJ “must take into account not only the claimant's statements about her pain, but also ‘all the available evidence,’ ... and any other evidence relevant to the severity of the impairment, such as evidence of the claimant's daily activities, specific descriptions of the pain, and any medical treatment taken to alleviate it.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 595 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.929(c)(3), 404.1529(c)(3)).

Subsections (b) and (c) require objective evidence of an impairment capable of producing symptoms, followed by an evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects against objective and other evidence.

Pearson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-06(b)-(c)

Assessing whether the alleged limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms can be credited is a two-step process. First, the claimant must provide objective medical evidence showing that a medical impairment exists, which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 594 (4th Cir. 1996). If the claimant meets this threshold obligation, the ALJ then considers the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, and the extent to which it affects his ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Craig, 76 F.3d at 595. The regulation directs the ALJ to consider whether the objective medical evidence and other evidence is consistent with a claimant’s statements regarding her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

At the first step under subsection (b), an ALJ may not reject alleged symptoms without a basis for finding that the medical evidence could not reasonably be expected to cause them.

Matthews v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-07(b)

The ALJ provided no basis for finding the medical evidence could not reasonably be expected to cause any pain-related symptoms.

Subsections (b) and (c) require a two-step assessment of whether an impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and, if so, how the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects restrict work activities.

Holdren, Jr. v. O'Malley · filed 2025-08-07(b)-(c)

He must engage in a two-step process in which he first determines whether there is an underlying medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, and then evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s work-related activities.

Subsections (b) and (c) require a two-step inquiry into whether an impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and, if so, whether their claimed extent is consistent with objective and other record evidence.

Tavera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-02(b)-(c)

First, “the ALJ must decide 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)); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a), (e). “Second, if the claimant does suffer from an impairment, 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.”

An ALJ properly completes the two-step analysis by finding an impairment capable of causing the symptoms and then assessing severity through examinations, symptom course, and daily activities.

Alfieri v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-30(a)-(c)

The ALJ properly adhered to the steps above. At step one, the ALJ found that the impairments could reasonably be expected to cause Alfieri’s alleged symptoms. (Tr. 29). And at step two, the ALJ found that Alfieri’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence.

When a medically determinable impairment could produce alleged symptoms, § 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and functional limitations using objective medical evidence and other relevant record evidence.

Pedelose · filed 2025-12-18(c)

When a plaintiff alleges symptoms of disabling severity, the ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating those symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, *2-3 (Oct. 25, 2017). First, the ALJ must determine whether the individual 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 the claimant, considering objective medical evidence and other information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence on the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304.

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

David Y. J. v. Bisignano · filed 2025-12-23(b), (c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the regulations require the ALJ to use the two- step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b). Second, if the first step is met, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) uses a two-step symptom process: determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Cline · filed 2026-01-21(c)(3)

A two-step process is used to evaluate an individual’s symptoms. (20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, SSR 16-3P (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017), 2017 WL 5180304.) At step one, the ALJ determines whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms. (Id.; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *3.) At step two, the ALJ evaluates the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms. (Id. at *4.)

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step process: determine whether an underlying condition could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Mann · filed 2026-01-30(a)

Under the two-step process for evaluating a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ first evaluates whether objective medical evidence of an underlying condition exists and whether that condition could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p. If so, the ALJ assesses any work-related limitations by determining the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p.

Sections 404.1529(b)-(c) establish a two-step symptom inquiry: objective evidence must first show an impairment reasonably capable of causing the symptoms, but at the second step the claimant need not provide objective evidence and the ALJ must consider all available evidence.

Lycan · filed 2026-02-05(b)-(c)

The regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; see also SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, “the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a ‘medically determinable impairment’ that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.” Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p). Second, “after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled.” Id. The ALJ must consider all available evidence in this determination, including objective medical evidence, “an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms,” and medical opinions and statements from others. Id. The claimant does not need to produce objective evidence to satisfy this second prong. Id. ... This error precludes meaningful judicial review of the RFC determination and warrants remand.

Section 404.1529 uses a two-part symptom analysis: determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce the symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects on basic work activities using the relevant listed factors.

Verhulst · filed 2026-02-19(c)

First, the ALJ will ask whether the there is an underlying medically determinable physical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms. Second, if the ALJ finds that such an impairment exists, then he must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms on the individual’s ability to do basic work activities. Relevant factors for the ALJ to consider in his evaluation of symptoms include the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate the symptoms; other treatment undertaken to relieve symptoms; other measures taken to relieve symptoms, such as lying on one’s back; and any other factors bearing on the limitations of the claimant to perform basic functions.

Section 404.1529 requires first determining whether an impairment could cause the alleged symptoms and then evaluating intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the entire administrative record.

Jacobsen · filed 2026-02-27(b), (c)

Thus, the ALJ must follow a two-step process: first, the ALJ must determine whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the symptoms alleged; and second, the ALJ must evaluate the alleged symptoms considering the entire administrative record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and functional limitations using objective medical evidence, source information, and other relevant evidence after a qualifying impairment is identified.

Mabry · filed 2026-03-03(c)

First, the ALJ must determine whether the individual 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 the claimant, considering objective medical evidence and other information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence on the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304. ... The ALJ names all of Mabry’s severe impairments and discusses her review of her activities of daily living, the effects of her treatment and medication, and the impact of her symptoms.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to compare alleged symptoms with objective medical and other evidence when determining their limiting effects.

JONES · filed 2026-03-09(a)

Evaluating a plaintiff's subjective symptoms is a two-step process. First, the ALJ considers the plaintiff's subjective symptoms "and the extent to which [those] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence." ... Consequently, the court finds no error.

Section 404.1529 mandates a two-step symptom evaluation beginning with a medically determinable impairment and followed by an assessment of symptom severity and limitations.

Crispens · filed 2026-03-13(b), (c)

The ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s symptoms was governed by a detailed Social Security regulation (20 C.F.R. § 404.1529) and SSR 16-3p, which mandates a two-step process for evaluating an individual’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step process: establish an impairment capable of producing symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and work limits.

Berry · filed 2026-03-16(b), (c)(1)

First, medical signs or laboratory findings must show the existence of medical impairment(s) that result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Second, once such impairment(s) are established, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms so the ALJ can determine how they limit the claimant's capacity to work. Id. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 mandates a two-step process for evaluating symptoms.

Jamie S. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-03-16(b), (c)

These arguments are unpersuasive because the ALJ complied with the two-step process required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step process requiring objective evidence of an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms, followed by an assessment of intensity and persistence using all available evidence without requiring objective proof at the second step.

Puffenbarger · filed 2026-03-24(b)–(c)

The claimant does not need to produce objective evidence to satisfy this second prong. ... Here, the ALJ followed the two-step process in considering Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529 requires objective clinical signs or laboratory findings of an impairment capable of producing alleged symptoms, followed by evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects using the full record.

Belcher · filed 2026-03-31(b)–(c)

The regulations require objective clinical signs and laboratory findings to demonstrate the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s alleged symptoms. ... If there is medical evidence in the record that establishes that such an impairment exists, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms and their effect on the claimant’s ability to work, considering the full record.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effects on work using the entire case record.

Brown · filed 2026-06-09(b), (c)

The Magistrate Judge correctly articulated that the prevailing regulations require the ALJ to follow a “two-step process . . . when evaluating a claimant’s subjective statements about his impairments and symptoms.” Ladda v. Berryhill, 749 F. App’x 166, 170 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929); see also SSR 16-3p. “First, the ALJ considers the objective medical evidence to determine whether the claimant’s medical impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Second, the ALJ evaluates the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms and determines the extent to which those symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work." Id. (cleaned up). The second step requires the ALJ to “assess the credibility of the claimant’s statements about symptoms and their functional effects.” Id. In doing so, the ALJ is required to consider the “entire case record, including the objective medical evidence, the individual’s own statements about symptoms, and statements by treating or examining physicians” and must “build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion that the claimant’s testimony was not credible.” Id. (cleaned up).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptom statements by first asking whether an underlying impairment could reasonably produce the symptoms and then evaluating their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Blackburn · filed 2026-06-17(a)

Disability determinations often hinge on the claimant’s credibility. The ALJ must consider statements or reports from the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). To determine whether statements of a claimant are credible, the following two-part test is used: First, the ALJ will ask whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms. Second, if the ALJ finds that such an impairment exists, then he must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms on the individual’s ability to do basic work activities. ... In any event, the Court believes the issue in Blackburn’s case constitutes a legal error in the writing of the ALJ’s opinion. The problem is the opinion does not provide the level of explanation required by the regulations.

Sections 404.1529(a) and (b) require objective clinical or laboratory evidence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms before evaluating how medically supported the claimant’s asserted work limitations are.

KUNKLE · filed 2026-06-11(a), (b)

The regulations’ two-step process requires: first, (a) objective clinical signs and laboratory findings demonstrating the existence of an MDI that (b) could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, and then second, as to that MDI, the extent to which the claimant’s statements of work-related impairment are medically supported. See supra; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a, b), 416.929(a, b). Here, the ALJ appropriately considered the medical records presented and reached her conclusions in accordance with the regulatory guidelines.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step analysis of a claimant’s symptoms when determining residual functional capacity.

England v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-07

When evaluating a plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain in the context of a residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ must follow a two-step analysis.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity and persistence using the available evidence.

Wynn v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-10-30(c)(1)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant's subjective complaints, the Commissioner's regulations require ALJs to employ a two-step inquiry. ... In this case, the ALJ applied the two-step inquiry.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the claimed symptoms, then evaluate their intensity and persistence using the available evidence.

Walker v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-02-25(c)(1)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant's subjective complaints, the Commissioner's regulations require ALJs to employ a two-step inquiry. ... In this case, the ALJ applied the two-step inquiry. ... The ALJ's consideration of these issues was proper, and her conclusion regarding Plaintiff's credibility is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(b) requires evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms before the ALJ evaluates their intensity and limiting effects.

Keffer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-05(b)

The ALJ only proceeds to the second step if the claimant’s impairments could reasonably produce the symptoms she alleges.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically established impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-09

As the Magistrate Judge explained, under the governing regulations, “the determination of whether a person is disabled by pain or other symptoms is a two-step process.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 594. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929(c). The first step requires a finding of objective medical evidence showing “the existence of a medical impairment(s) which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. After a claimant has met this threshold showing, the ALJ must evaluate “the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s pain, and the extent to which it affects her ability to work.” Id. at 595. ... Plaintiff’s objection is overruled and the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings as to this issue.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-07

An ALJ must use a two-step framework to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). The ALJ must first determine whether there is objective evidence of a “medically determinable impairment,” that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 at *3. Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s alleged symptoms in order to determine how those symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to maintain substantial gainful employment and whether they are disabled. 20 C.F.R § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 at *4. Here, the ALJ followed this standard.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms: whether a medically determinable impairment could cause them, then how their intensity and persistence limit work activities.

Swingle v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-16(b)–(c)

Under the regulations, the ALJ must apply a two-step analysis when evaluating a claimant’s statements about his impairments and symptoms. SR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4 (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b)–(c),416.929(b)–(c).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of symptoms, including an assessment of their intensity and persistence.

Hardin v. Dudek · filed 2025-02-25

Accordingly, the ALJ properly followed the two-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and expounded upon in SSR 16–3p, and did not violate the standards articulated in and .

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to assess whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the claimant’s symptoms and then how much those symptoms limit work activities.

Gelman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-03(a)

Gelman further asserts that the ALJ did not conduct a proper two-step analysis in assessing his impairment, in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Gelman, however, appears to cite to the December 2021 ALJ decision, rather than the June 2024 decision at issue here. As discussed above, the ALJ did conduct the proper two-step analysis, and Gelman’s assertions to the contrary are unavailing.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of whether a medically determinable impairment could cause alleged symptoms and how those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work.

Hale v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-12

These arguments are not well-taken because the ALJ complied with the two-step process required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(a) calls for assessing whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the claimant’s symptoms, then evaluating how those symptoms limit work activities.

Lestingi · filed 2025-12-04(a)

In making its determination, the ALJ correctly followed a two-step process. Tr. at 21; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). First, the ALJ assessed whether any medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce Lestingi’s symptoms. Tr. at 21. Second, the ALJ assessed those symptoms to determine the extent to which they limited Lestingi’s work-related activities. Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ evaluating a claimant's symptoms to consider treatment the claimant declined, including medication or surgery.

Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)(v)

It was appropriate for the ALJ to consider evidence in the record that reflected Plaintiff’s decisions to decline taking certain medications.

When an ALJ relies on a claimant’s decision not to undergo treatment to discount reported symptoms, the ALJ must consider the Frey factors, including whether the treatment was prescribed and whether the refusal was justified.

Rodgers v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-29(c)(3)

The Court finds Allred persuasive and agrees that it, too, is bound to follow Thompson. As such, the ALJ should have considered the Frey factors if she relied on Plaintiff’s decision not to undergo treatment as part of her assessment of his symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires objective evidence of an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms and, if that evidence does not substantiate the allegations, an assessment based on the entire record.

SOTO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-10-04(c)

A claimant’s subjective symptoms must be corroborated by objective medical evidence; i.e., evidence of a medically determinable impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s underlying symptoms. See Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529). ... As such, in light of Plaintiff’s lack of corroborating evidence regarding the severity and intensity of his pain, and the thorough analysis of the total medical record, I find that the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints was based on substantial evidence.

A § 404.1529 symptom evaluation must be revisited when the ALJ improperly discounts treating and examining medical opinions that support the claimant’s subjective complaints.

Torres v. King · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)

The ALJ’s analysis is undermined by the errors outlined above in discounting the assessments of the treating and examining physicians, which support Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Therefore, this issue will need to be revisited on remand after proper consideration of that evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) requires the adjudicator to examine objective medical evidence and other evidence such as daily activities, aggravating factors, and treatment, and to acknowledge evidence contrary to the symptom-severity conclusion.

Nagel v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-11(c)(1)-(3)

In making this second determination, the ALJ must examine the objective medical evidence as well as other evidence, including daily activities, aggravating factors, and treatment. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(1)-(3). And he must at least acknowledge evidence that runs counter to his conclusions.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and other relief measures when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Amor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-10(c)(3)

In evaluating subjective symptoms, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) instructs the ALJ to consider a claimant’s 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 taken to alleviate symptoms; treatment other than medication received for symptoms; and any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms. The ALJ provided no discussion of any of these factors in considering Amor’s subjective symptoms, and I cannot evaluate whether the ALJ properly considered his subjective symptoms when there is no analysis or discussion.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis and meaningful consideration of the seven regulatory factors.

Carnevale v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-21(c)(1), (c)(3)

Despite making that determination, the ALJ does not appear to have conducted a credibility assessment consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). As far as I can discern, the ALJ’s decision contains no meaningful discussion of any of the seven factors, though he was required to consider each of them.

Section 404.1529 requires the adjudicator to consider every material alleged symptom and its potential work-related limits, including objectively diagnosed urinary hesitancy requiring lengthy bathroom use.

Bacon v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-21(c)

The ALJ must consider the entire record, including all alleged symptoms and non-severe impairments, when formulating a decision. ... The ALJ failed to mention or consider plaintiff's symptoms of urinary hesitancy from her numerous tumor resection surgeries. ... The plaintiff had objective testing and a diagnosis of urinary hesitancy and testified to requiring 15 minutes or more to void her bladder. ... The ALJ was required to consider plaintiff's urinary hesitancy and how it potentially limited her capacity for work. ... The ALJ erred by not considering all of plaintiff? s symptoms.

A symptom evaluation must address pivotal undisputed evidence of recurring inpatient treatment and daily living assistance when that evidence bears directly on the ability to sustain work and perform daily activities.

Painter v. Saul · filed 2021-09-28(c)(3)

I find that the ALJ’s decision is not based on substantial evidence on the record as a whole because he failed to address the critical monthly impact of Painter’s infusion treatments on her ability to keep a job. As a result, I will remand this case for the ALJ to address this issue. In addition, upon remand the ALJ should also explicitly address the impact of the daily assisted living help Painter receives and how it impacts Painter’s daily living assessment.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to analyze well-documented persistent fatigue and explain either the resulting nonexertional RFC restrictions or why no such restrictions are necessary.

Fitzmorris · filed 2025-11-24(c)

The ALJ found that Fitzmorris’s lupus was a severe impairment. But despite the ample evidence of her fatigue and its effect of Fitzmorris’s functioning, the ALJ did not examine this symptom, offer reasons why her well-documented fatigue caused no nonexertional restrictions in the RFC determination, or explain why Fitzmorris’s statements about fatigue were unpersuasive.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to account for how a somatoform disorder may affect the claimant's reported pain and limitations.

Tremblay v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-08(c)(3)

On remand, the Commissioner must properly take into account the Plaintiff’s somatoform disorder in evaluating her credibility and her RFC, including taking any necessary steps to complete the administrative record.

Under section 404.1529(c)(2), a mismatch between symptoms and objective findings may support rather than undermine disability when somatic symptom disorder is a medically determinable impairment.

Deaton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-23(c)(2)

In fact, a lack of objective evidence supporting Plaintiff's claims of pain or symptoms may support rather than undermine a claim of disability where somatic symptom disorder is an MDI.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms reasonably consistent with objective and other evidence.

Chavis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-18(a), (c)(1)

In addition, he must “consider all [the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [her] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1529 requires symptoms and their work effects to be considered with medical and nonmedical evidence when determining RFC.

St. John v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-14(a), (c)(1)

More specifically, an ALJ must first ascertain whether underlying medical impairments exist that “could reasonably be expected to produce” the plaintiff's symptoms, and if so then the ALJ must “evaluate ... the intensity and persistence” of the plaintiffs symptoms in light of all medical and nonmedical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), (c)(3), (e); 404.1529(a), (c)(1).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) is satisfied when the ALJ clearly links the symptom finding to evidence addressing the relevant factors and accounts for supported limitations in the RFC.

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

Accordingly, the ALJ adequately linked his findings to the evidence and provided clear and specific reasons for his determination in accordance with the directives of Kepler, as well as SSR 16-3p and the governing regulations. Further, it appears that the ALJ, in formulating the RFC, accounted for Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms regarding extreme and debilitating hand limitations caused by lupus-related Raynaud’s disease, by precluding Plaintiff from exposure to extreme cold and limiting her to only frequently handling, fingering, and feeling with the bilateral upper extremities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence, but improvement must be weighed in the overall diagnostic context.

Miller v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-08(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits reliance on successful treatment, but isolated improvement does not justify discounting symptoms when later records show continuing limitations.

Malcolm v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-03(c)(3)(iv)

As for the ALJ’s third reason, a finding that an impairment is successfully managed with 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 ALJ did not mention that after this note plaintiff continued to report challenges with her mental health including symptoms of anxiety, paranoia, and terror.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant when determining symptom severity.

Reno v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-03(c)(3)

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) (2011). ... The ALJ reasonably found Plaintiff’s impairments, when treated, are not as severe as Plaintiff alleges.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) permits an ALJ to use treatment response and medical evidence to assess the severity of subjective symptom complaints.

Augustyn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-20(c)(2), (c)(3)

In short, the ALJ reasonably relied upon such evidence to reject Plaintiff’s subjective complaints about her migraine headaches and conclude that Plaintiff’s impairment was “non-severe.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), (3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes improvement with treatment relevant to symptom intensity and persistence, but improvement must be evaluated within the overall diagnostic picture and cannot be borrowed from recovery from a different impairment.

Brown v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-12(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3) [SSI] 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) [DIB]. ... Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.” ... Taken in context, Plaintiff’s self-report of “doing great” refers to Plaintiff’s state of recovery from his ankle injury, and not as a general statement of his overall physical health. ... In sum, the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony. The ALJ’s rejection of Plaintiff’s testimony was therefore error.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) allows symptom testimony to be discounted for improvement or control with medication only when the treatment record, viewed in light of waxing and waning mental-health symptoms, actually shows successful relief.

Hughes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-22(c)(3)(iv)

A finding that a claimant’s condition improved or was controlled with treatment can serve as a clear and convincing reason for discounting her testimony. See 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); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability). ... For the same reasons this Court has determined that the ALJ improperly considered the medical opinion evidence, the ALJ also erred by improperly discounting plaintiff’s testimony, while failing to take into account the waxing and waning nature of mental health symptoms. ... Therefore, improvement with treatment is not a clear and convincing reason to discount plaintiff’s testimony with respect to her allegations of depression and anxiety.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires treatment improvement to be evaluated in the relevant time period; a nonspecific earlier period of relief does not outweigh specific later deterioration, escalating treatment, and renewed surgery.

Estes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-24(c)(3)

The Court agrees with the Commissioner that the ALJ engaged in the regulatory analysis governing symptom evaluation. After a review of the record evidence cited in that analysis, however, the Court agrees with plaintiff that the ALJ’s characterization thereof—as related to the period after June 2020—is not supported by substantial evidence. ... A nonspecific “lengthy period of relief” (id.) is not substantial evidence to support plaintiff’s condition after June 2020 given the specific evidence the ALJ himself catalogued showing plaintiff’s deterioration, along with the fact that plaintiff ultimately resorted to further surgery. ... Plaintiff testified, however, that she was able to work only from May-October 2020 until she had to stop because of increasing pain, which is consistent with plaintiff’s reports elsewhere in the medical records that her back condition began to deteriorate at this time.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not permit isolated instances without symptoms or normal findings to establish medication control unless the adjudicator explains which conditions and symptoms were controlled by which treatment.

(SS) Eidson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-25(c)(3)

First, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the principle underlying Garrison is not strictly limited to mental disabilities or symptoms, but more generally that an ALJ cannot pick out a few isolated instances of improvement and use them as a basis for concluding that the claimant was capable of working, as indicated by the number of cases cited below. ... Specifically, it is not clear how these records would demonstrate that, even if the symptoms were not present on these limited dates, that the conditions were in fact well-controlled because of medication or treatment. ... At bottom, the ALJ does not explain which conditions or symptoms are well controlled by which medications or treatments. ... Accordingly, the Court does not find the ALJ’s statement that the Plaintiff’s condition was well-controlled on medication is a clear and convincing reason supporting the discounting of Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits longitudinal mental-health improvement to inform symptom intensity when the adjudicator acknowledges remaining symptoms and incorporates corresponding work restrictions.

Butler v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-08(c)(3)

The ALJ considered and cited to multiple treatment notes showing that Plaintiff’s mental health symptoms improved with treatment. ... Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in considering Plaintiff’s improvement with treatment because he continues to have periods of depression and anxiety that cause functional limitations. ... The ALJ, however, acknowledged this and found the remaining limitations from Plaintiff’s severe mental impairments limit him to work involving simple tasks with restricted social interaction.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) permit documented functional and pain improvement following treatment to serve as a clear and convincing reason for discounting symptom allegations when evaluated in the overall record.

(SS)Fryar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-25(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff “experienced significant improvement in his pain…and ability to function in the months following his surgeries” in 2018. ... The ALJ recognized Plaintiff was walking better, becoming more active, denied pain, and expressed an interest in returning to work. ... The ALJ’s findings are consistent with Plaintiff’s medical record, that following his surgeries in 2018, his condition improved. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s recognition that Plaintiff’s condition had improved constitutes a clear and convincing reason to reject Plaintiff’s symptom allegations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an important symptom-severity indicator, but improvement must be evaluated in the overall diagnostic picture and does not necessarily show that a claimant can function effectively at work.

Coulter v. O'Malley · filed 2023-12-07(c)(3)

A claimant's improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture,” particularly for mental-disorder symptoms which often wax and wane. If treatment relieves symptoms to an extent that allows the claimant to return to a level of function she had before she developed mental-disorder symptoms, such treatment can undermine a claim of disability. Reports of improvement “must be interpreted with an understanding of the patient’s overall well-being and the nature of her symptoms,” as well as with an awareness that “improved functioning while being treated and while limiting environmental stressors does not always mean that a claimant can function effectively in a workplace.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits successful treatment to undermine symptom testimony, but temporary improvements must be evaluated in the full diagnostic context and do not establish sustained improvement.

Kite v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-01(c)(3)

Whether treatment is effective in treating one’s symptoms is a valid factor for ALJs to consider when evaluating symptom testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). “[E]vidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability.” Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”) However, an ALJ cannot “reject a claimant’s testimony merely because symptoms wax and wane in the course of treatment,” as “[c]ycles of improvement and debilitating symptoms are a common occurrence.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence, but improvement must be weighed within the overall diagnostic picture.

Moe v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-08(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 833 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Occasional symptom-free periods . . . are not inconsistent with disability.”).

Subsections (c)(3)(iv) and (v) make treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom evaluation, but limited improvement does not justify rejecting testimony when symptoms wax and wane and the record as a whole shows continuing impairment.

Fipps v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-22(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor an ALJ may consider when evaluating subjective symptom testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv–v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv–v). However, “it is error to reject a claimant’s testimony merely because symptoms wax and wane in the course of treatment.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1017.

Subsection (c)(3) makes improvement with treatment relevant, but improvement must be evaluated in the overall diagnostic context and must actually establish a nondisabling level of functioning.

Jensen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-29(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 833 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Occasional symptom-free periods . . . are not inconsistent with disability.”). ... All of this shows that there was not substantial evidence in the record viewed in total to conclude that Plaintiff’s symptoms improved with treatment. Thus the ALJ cherry-picked certain evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion, the ALJ’s interpretation of the evidence was not rational, and the evidence of improvement with treatment upon which the ALJ relied is insufficient to provide a clear and convincing reason to reject Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of medication side effects and treatment tradeoffs, so an ALJ may not rely on symptom improvement while omitting that the improvement followed withdrawal of medication that controlled another impairment.

Clayton v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-26(c)(3)

It is indisputable that an ALJ must consider the effects of a claimant’s treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (noting an ALJ must consider the “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [the claimant] take[s] or [has] taken to alleviate [his] main or other symptoms” in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms) ... Critically, though, the path tracing the ALJ’s reasoning is muddied by the fact that the decision completely neglects to mention an important reason why Claimant’s nausea might have improved: Dr. Tracy’s decision to halt Claimant’s methotrexate because it might have been causing or at least contributing to his nausea. See (R. 1477). The omission is a glaring example of cherrypicking, and it is not harmless.

Under § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), treatment success undermines symptom testimony only when the ALJ fairly describes the post-treatment symptoms and explains why their remaining frequency and duration conflict with the alleged limitations; some improvement alone is insufficient.

(SS) Watercaster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)(iv)

First, plaintiff argues the ALJ understated her post-treatment symptoms. Specifically, the ALJ omitted evidence from the same medical record showing that, in addition to 4-5 migraines per month, plaintiff reported chronic headaches 2-3 days a week lasting 2-3 hours with an intensity of 5-6/10. (ECF No. 12 at 11-12 (citing AR 1619).) The undersigned agrees that the ALJ’s description of her post-treatment treatment symptoms masks the full picture presented in the record and calls into question the evidentiary basis of the finding of improvement. ... Accordingly, the ALJ committed reversible error in failing to provide clear and convincing reasons, supported by the evidence, for discounting plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony based on type and effectiveness of her migraine treatments.

Section 404.1529 does not permit an ALJ to equate treatment that merely makes headaches tolerable with disabling-symptom improvement when headaches remain frequent or worsening and one of the only effective measures is sleep that would interfere with full-time work.

Groff v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-10-09(c)(3)

In sum, the record reflects that plaintiff’s headaches are at the very least still present, and potentially worsening. (Tr. 19-20.) Thus, improvement with treatment does not rise to the level of a clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence, for the ALJ to reject plaintiff’s symptom claims in their entirety. This is particularly true because one of the only solutions to relieve her symptoms is sleep, which would greatly affect her ability to work full-time.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows an ALJ to consider limited treatment and relief from medication when evaluating reported symptoms.

Davis v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-29(c)(3)

That Plaintiff’s treatment for her back and neck was limited and that the prescribed anti-inflammatory and Tylenol reduced her symptoms were clear and convincing reasons to discount her reported symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows an ALJ to consider treatment and symptom improvement when evaluating the intensity and persistence of claimed symptoms.

Mong v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-10(c)(3)

The amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3). ... As such, the ALJ did not err in citing conservative, routine, and effective medical treatment in discounting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ determining RFC to consider the totality of medical and nonmedical evidence, including symptom impact, activities, medication, and treatment.

Garner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-13(a), (b), (c), (d)

In making the RFC determination, the ALJ considers the totality of evidence in the record, not solely medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)-(d). In addition to any medical opinions, the ALJ considers Plaintiff’s medical history, medical signs and laboratory findings, statements about the impact of symptoms, daily activities, medication, and other treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)-(d).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ determining residual functional capacity to evaluate the claimant’s subjective allegations along with the medical opinions and other relevant evidence.

Hensley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-01(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 (2021); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate subjective pain allegations against the whole record and build a logical bridge when medical evidence is consistent with the claimed pain.

Ragain v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-13(c)

But this isn’t a case where there appears to be any discrepancy between the medical evidence and plaintiff’s allegations. It is perfectly understandable that someone with one hip that won’t heal after three surgeries and another with a torn labrum – that’s what the medical evidence shows, in a nutshell – would experience significant pain when sitting. Without some kind of an explanation as why that wouldn’t be the case, the court cannot say that ALJ’s credibility determination was based on substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 allows objective inconsistencies to discount symptom testimony only when combined with another permissible reason, and the ALJ must explain how the evidence contradicts allegedly work-preclusive pain.

Bigler v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-20(c)(1)-(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. The lack of objective medical evidence may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. ... However, when coupled with another permissible reason, inconsistencies between a claimant’s allegations and objective medical evidence may be used to discount a claimant’s testimony. ... And while the ALJ cited to plaintiff’s multiple treatments for pain, the ALJ did not explain how the objective medical evidence contradicts plaintiff’s claim that she suffered from pain so extreme that it required her to use narcotics multiple times a day and prevented her from working. ... In any event, it is unclear from the ALJ’s decision why plaintiff’s complaints of debilitating pain were rejected, and the case must be remanded for that analysis.

Subsections (c)(3) and (c)(4) require consideration of conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence, the listed symptom factors, and a sufficient explanation of how pain affects residual functional capacity.

Swindle v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-02(c)(3)-(4)

The second determination requires the ALJ to 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 [the claimant’s] history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by [the claimant’s] medical sources or other persons about how [his] symptoms affect [him].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) ... The ALJ neglected to provide as thorough an explanation as required to support her conclusions as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s pain on his RFC assessment. Therefore, substantial evidence does not support her decision.

Lack of objective corroboration cannot alone justify rejecting symptom testimony, but contradiction by medical evidence can be sufficient if the ALJ gives clear and convincing reasons.

(SS) Hernandez Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-11(c)(2)

This is an accurate statement. As the Court noted, subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence” Vertigan, 260 F.3d at 1049, but the ALJ must provide an additional reason for discounting the testimony, Burch, 400 F.3d at 680–81; Stobie, 690 Fed. App’x at 911. However, as the Court also noted, testimony that is “contradicted” by the medical records, is sufficient on its own to meet the clear and convincing standard.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) permits medical findings to support discounting testimony only when the findings are actually inconsistent with specifically identified symptom claims.

Moore v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3), (c)(4)

Medical findings may serve as a clear and convincing reason to discount a claimant’s testimony, but only if such medical findings are truly inconsistent with specifically identified testimony. ... The ALJ did not explain why the identified findings are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony that his back pain causes limitations in sitting, standing, and lifting.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars discounting subjective complaints solely because objective evidence does not support them, but permits reliance on objective medical evidence that affirmatively contradicts the complaints.

Horton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-03-31(c)(2)

Along the same lines, Horton correctly observes that an ALJ cannot discredit a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence. Snyder v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 330 F. App’x 843, 848 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2)). However, this error arises when an ALJ fails to “point to any objective medical evidence contradicting [a claimant’s] pain allegations . . . .” Id. In the case at bar, the ALJ did not rule against Horton based upon a lack of objective evidence supporting the alleged symptoms. Rather, the ALJ reviewed the objective medical evidence and determined it contradicted Horton’s alleged mental health symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) permits weighing subjective complaints against affirmative objective inconsistencies, while prohibiting demands for missing objective corroboration when the alleged disease does not produce such evidence.

Scharbrough v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2023-06-09(c)

But, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, this process comported with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and the requirements delineated in Arakas, as the ALJ did not require Plaintiff to produce “objective evidence” to corroborate subjective complaints of pain. ... A careful reading of this analysis reveals that the ALJ merely weighed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints against other record evidence. ... Moreover, Arakas holds that “ALJs may not rely on objective medical evidence (or the lack thereof) . . . to discount a claimant’s subjective complaints regarding symptoms of . . . some disease that does not produce such evidence.” ... As such, the ALJ did not err in weighing Plaintiff’s subjective complaints against the objective evidence in this case.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires the ALJ to determine symptom intensity and persistence from all available medical and nonmedical evidence and to identify actual inconsistencies before rejecting severity testimony.

Schimming v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-13(c)(1)

If the first step is satisfied, and the ALJ finds no evidence of malingering, the ALJ next determines the intensity and persistence of symptoms by considering “all the available evidence from . . . medical sources and nonmedical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). ... Although the ALJ stated that Plaintiff’s testimony was inconsistent with the objective medical evidence, he failed to identify any inconsistences. ... None of these observations are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony about his limitations. ... The Court may only review the reasons the ALJ asserts, of which there are none here.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) distinguishes symptom testimony merely uncorroborated by objective evidence, which requires an additional reason to discount, from testimony affirmatively contradicted by medical records, which may itself support rejection.

(SS) Hill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-27(c)(2)

“The fact that a claimant’s testimony is not fully corroborated by the objective medical findings, in and of itself, is not a clear and convincing reason for rejecting it.” ... See also 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 or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). Rather, where a claimant’s symptom testimony is not fully substantiated by the objective medical record, the ALJ must provide additional reasons for discounting the testimony. ... The Court of Appeals has distinguished testimony that is “uncorroborated” by the medical evidence from testimony that is “contradicted” by the medical records, and concluded that contradictions with the medical records, by themselves, are enough to meet the clear and convincing standard.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires subjective complaints to be considered with the entire record, and normal examination findings do not justify discounting limitations with which they are not inconsistent.

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

The ALJ should consider these factors along with all the evidence of record. ... While these unremarkable examination findings may conflict with some of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, many were not necessarily inconsistent with all of Plaintiff’s descriptions of her limitations and pain. ... Because this case is remanded on other grounds, the ALJ should also reconsider Plaintiff's subjective complaints.

Reasons that contradict one category of symptoms do not automatically discredit a different category; the adjudicator must identify evidence that actually conflicts with the particular testimony being rejected.

(SS) Gabriel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-31(c)(2)-(3)

However, the fact that Plaintiff regularly rides a bicycle and occasionally engages in manual labor does not contradict or otherwise discredit or undermine his claimed psychiatric symptoms (i.e., panic attacks, hearing voices, etc.). ... Thus, the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony about pain symptoms does not constitute clear and convincing reasons for similarly discounting Plaintiff’s testimony about his psychiatric symptoms. ... Here, the ALJ discussed the relevant medical evidence but “failed to link” Plaintiff’s testimony to the medical record and explain how that evidence contradicted his testimony. ... While the ALJ certainly provided a “detailed summary” of Plaintiff’s medical records, the summary alone does not constitute clear and convincing reasons sufficient to uphold the ALJ’s discrediting of Plaintiff’s psychiatric symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ assessing symptoms to consider whether a claimant’s loss of insurance explains a gap in treatment before treating that gap as evidence of improvement.

Myers v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-07(c)

The ALJ erred in failing to consider whether Plaintiff’s loss of insurance affected or explained her lack of treatment, especially given that the ALJ jumped to unfounded speculation that this meant her symptoms must have improved.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits consideration of treatment frequency and compliance but requires consideration and explanation of reasons for limited or inconsistent treatment.

Newman v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-07(c)(3)(v)

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows an ALJ to consider a DIB claimant’s record of current and past medical treatment in evaluating the claimant’s subjective symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v). ... However, the SSA “will not find an individual’s symptoms inconsistent with the evidence in the record on this basis without considering possible reasons he or she may not comply with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats the amount of treatment as an important symptom indicator but requires consideration of good reasons for not seeking more aggressive care.

Watkins v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-21(c)(3)

The amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3). If, however, the claimant has a good reason for not seeking more aggressive treatment, conservative treatment is not a proper basis for rejecting the claimant’s subjective symptoms.

Before using noncompliance or treatment gaps to find alleged symptoms inconsistent, the adjudicator must consider possible explanations and may need to ask the claimant why treatment was not followed or sought.

Sawicki v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-11(c)(3)

SSR 16-3p requires the ALJ to consider possible explanations for non-compliance and treatment gaps before using that evidence in a disability determination. ... In this case, Sawicki’s history of noncompliance and gaps in treatment were among the primary reasons cited by the ALJ in her assessment of Sawicki’s testimony about his symptoms and her decision to deny Sawicki disability benefits. ... The ALJ’s decision does not mention any possible explanations for why that might have been, nor did the ALJ ask Sawicki for his explanations during the hearing. ... It is legal error, sufficient to warrant a remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits treatment noncompliance to weigh against alleged symptom severity when the ALJ first considers explanations such as financial hardship or scheduling conflicts.

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

As mentioned above, the ALJ was entitled to consider treatment Plaintiff received (or did not receive) to relieve her symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3)(v). In doing so, it is clear that the ALJ considered whether additional factors interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to comply with recommended treatment, before permissibly concluding that they likely did not. ... Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in finding that Plaintiff’s treatment history weakened her credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits treatment history to inform symptom evaluation, but an ALJ relying on non-treatment or noncompliance must consider good cause, including whether a mental impairment impeded treatment.

Smith v. O'Malley · filed 2023-12-07(c)(3)

A claimant’s course of treatment, including an inadequately explained failure to seek treatment, is a relevant factor for the ALJ to consider when assessing the claimant’s symptom reports. Yet, the ALJ must discuss whether the claimant had good cause for not seeking treatment, including whether a mental impairment contributed to her not seeking or complying with treatment.

Section 404.1529's symptom-evaluation process requires an ALJ to consider and explain a claimant's reason for not seeking treatment before using limited treatment to discount symptom allegations.

Leslie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-09

While evaluating symptom severity, the ALJ must “explain how [he] considered the individual’s reasons for not seeking treatment,” doing so in a manner sufficient to allow the Court to trace that path of his reasoning. Id. Thus, while it is true that an ALJ must first consider a claimant’s explanation for not seeking treatment before making an adverse credibility finding, failure to obtain treatment can support an adverse credibility finding where the claimant does not have good reason for not seeking additional treatment.

An ALJ may consider a missed treatment consultation when assessing symptom intensity after asking the claimant why the appointment was missed and considering the explanation.

Jackson v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2025-08-22(c)

So the Court finds it acceptable that the ALJ considered the missed consultation in assessing Plaintiff’s symptoms and how they may limit her life. This is particularly true given the ALJ asked Plaintiff about missing medical appointments during the March 2017 hearing, therefore letting her explain the situation and showing that he was considering why she may have missed the appointment.

An ALJ may not draw a negative inference from limited treatment without considering the claimant’s reasons for not seeking treatment.

Albert H. v. Bisignano · filed 2026-03-18(c)(3)(v)

The ALJ also improperly drew a negative inference from Mr. H’s lack of treatment history without exploring his reasons for not getting treatment during the relevant time period.

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of treatment when evaluating symptoms, but a lack of mental health treatment may be an inadequate reason to discount mental health complaints.

Page v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(c)

Finally, the Commissioner’s contention that the ALJ was permitted to impugn Plaintiff’s testimony based on his lack of treatment is unpersuasive. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(iv–v), 416.929(c)(iv–v) (explaining that the effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor ALJs may consider when evaluating subjective symptom testimony). The Ninth Circuit has explained that failure to seek or follow a prescribed course of mental health treatment is problematic reason to discredit mental health complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) allows an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment history when evaluating symptoms, after exploring the reasons for a gap in treatment.

Schuring v. Saul · filed 2022-02-04(c)(3)(v)

As the finder of fact, the ALJ was entitled to draw an inference that Plaintiff’s lack of treatment suggested tolerance of his symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptom severity to consider relevant factors, including treatment history and possible reasons for limited treatment.

Gilliam v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-06(c)(3)

The ALJ was required to comply with the applicable Social Security regulation when evaluating Plaintiff’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... The Court concludes that the ALJ did not comply with the applicable regulatory framework when she evaluated Plaintiff’s symptom severity. This error of law requires reversal.

Section 404.1529 requires objective evidence of an impairment capable of producing pain but does not require objective evidence of the pain itself or its intensity.

Watlington v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-21

It is well-established that while a claimant must show objective evidence of some condition that would reasonably produce pain, there need not be objective evidence of the pain itself or its intensity.

Section 404.1529 requires objective evidence only of an impairment capable of causing the alleged symptoms; at the second step a claimant may prove symptom severity exclusively through subjective evidence, though inconsistent allegations need not be accepted.

Voong v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-17(b), (c)

The Fourth Circuit has “consistently held that ‘while there must be objective medical evidence of some condition that could reasonably produce the pain,’” this statement applies solely to the first step of the process. ... As to the second step, “there need not be objective evidence of the pain itself or its intensity.” ... A claimant is “entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence” to prove the severity and extent of their symptoms. ... Here, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion and to the facts in Arakas, the ALJ did not impermissibly raise Plaintiff’s burden by requiring her to provide objective evidence of the extent of her symptoms. ... This analysis comported with both the applicable regulatory framework detailed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929, as well as the requirements of Arakas.

After an impairment capable of causing alleged symptoms is shown, § 404.1529 permits reliance on subjective evidence and bars discrediting it merely for lack of objective confirmation, while still requiring consideration of all available evidence.

Savoy v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-29(b)-(c)(3)

Objective evidence of the claimant’s alleged symptoms or their intensity is not required at the second step; instead, the claimant may rely entirely on subjective evidence. ... While the ALJ is not required to accept the claimant’s subjective evidence to the extent it is inconsistent with other evidence in the record, the ALJ must consider all of the available evidence and cannot discredit the plaintiff’s subjective evidence simply because it is not confirmed by objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529 does not require objective medical proof of pain itself or its intensity when an underlying condition could reasonably cause the alleged pain.

Davis v. Astrue · filed 2007-03-21

In this circuit medical evidence of pain itself, or of its intensity, is not required.

Section 404.1529 does not make a medical consultant's checkbox answer controlling or direct a finding of disability.

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

Yet the Plaintiff offers no legal authority that this checkbox answer on the RFC form directs a finding of disability or trumps the ALJ’s duty to consider all the categories of evidence in assessing the Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms. ... The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the relevant factors in assessing the Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms and his mother’s testimony and discussed the relevant evidence of record.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (c)(4) require an ALJ to consider statements made to physicians when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of subjective symptoms.

DELO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3), (c)(4)

It is beyond dispute that an ALJ can, and in fact must, consider such evidence as statements made to physicians in evaluating a claimant’s subjective testimony about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his or her symptoms.

An ALJ may discount symptom allegations using specific contradictions between hearing testimony and contemporaneous medical reports rather than relying solely on objective medical findings.

Abudayyeh v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-30(a)

The contradictions noted by the ALJ are sufficient “specific reasons supported by the record” to support the ALJ’s credibility determination.

An ALJ may discount subjective complaints that are unsupported by the record after considering the claimant’s activities, pain presentation, medication and side effects, and other treatment.

Durant v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-06(c)

As displayed above, the ALJ considered a multitude of the SSR 16-3p factors, like Plaintiff’s allegations regarding daily activities, the presentation of pain, the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication, and treatment other than medication. (Tr. 23-26). The ALJ supported his finding–that Plaintiff’s limiting effects from Plaintiff’s symptoms/pain were inconsistent with the record–with citation to substantial evidence. There is no outcome determinative error here; Plaintiff’s allegations were analyzed in accordance with the appropriate regulations by the ALJ.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to assess subjective pain statements for reasonable consistency using the entire record, including objective findings, statements from the claimant and others, treatment, and other relevant evidence.

V. James F. v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-05-03(c)(3)

The ALJ must consider a claimant’s subjective statements about pain and determine the extent to which they are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). SSR 16-3p directs the ALJ to consider the entire case record, including not only the objective medical evidence, but also the individual’s statements, statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons, and any other relevant evidence, as well as whether the subjective statements are consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings. ... Based on the foregoing, I find that the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective statements is consistent with applicable law and well supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate how reported symptoms affect the claimant by considering all available evidence, including medical history, signs, laboratory findings, and the claimant’s statements.

Manthe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-12(a)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), an ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptoms and the extent to which those symptoms “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must specifically “consider all of the available evidence, including [the claimant’s] medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements about how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [her].” ... The ALJ was certainly succinct in stating his reasons for not finding Kim was as limited by her symptoms as she alleged, but his subjective symptom assessment also certainly included both explanation and support.