20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of all presented evidence, including prior work, symptom statements, medical-source evidence, and observations by agency employees and other people.

Watts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-12(c)(3)

Here, in addition to the opinion evidence discussed above, the ALJ’s RFC finding was also supported by the objective medical evidence and Plaintiff’s reported activities of daily living. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (providing that the SSA “will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about [a claimant's] prior work record, [a claimant’s] statements about [his] symptoms, evidence submitted by [his] medical sources, and observations by [the SSA's] employees and other persons”).

Section 404.1529(c) requires the adjudicator to determine symptom intensity, persistence, and functional effects from the entire record, including medical findings and opinions and information about the symptoms' impact on work.

Murawski v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-13(c)

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. This includes but is not limited to medical signs and laboratory findings, diagnoses, and other medical opinions provided by treating or examining sources, and other medical sources, as well as information concerning the claimant's symptoms and how they affect his or her ability to work.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of all presented evidence when assessing symptom statements, including prior work history, the claimant’s statements, medical-source evidence, and observations by agency employees and others.

Hervey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-26(c)(3)

Specifically, plaintiff’s argument that she has greater difficulties in socializing than the ALJ found is not consistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 (explaining ALJ may consider the consistency of a claimant’s statements against medical signs and other record evidence). ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (providing that the SSA “will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about [a claimant's] prior work record, [a claimant's] statements about [her] symptoms, evidence submitted by [her] medical sources, and observations by [the SSA's] employees and other persons”). ... Plaintiff reported that she socialized with family and treatment notes showed she was cooperative, behaved well, and related adequately.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of all record evidence and the listed symptom factors to determine work-related limits.

Linebeck v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-14(c)

The ALJ is instructed to “consider all of the evidence in an individual’s record,” to “determine how symptoms limit ability to perform work-related activities.”

Section 404.1529 requires a whole-record symptom assessment and permits discounting subjective complaints when detailed reasons supported by objective evidence, treatment history, medical opinions, and daily activities show inconsistency.

Franklin v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-09-05(a)-(c)(4)

The ALJ then thoroughly discussed the record as a whole and gave detailed reasons, supported by the record, for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, pursuant to SSR 16-3p, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)- (c)(3), and the relevant case law. ... Here, the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints in light of the evidence of record, and the ALJ sufficiently cited evidence in the record for finding that Plaintiff’s statements were not entirely consistent with the record as a whole.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount subjective complaints based on the evidence as a whole, including examinations, treatment, functional testing, recurrence, and medication effectiveness, but not solely on medical evidence.

Daniel v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-05

Certainly, the ALJ cannot discount Plaintiff’s complaints based solely on the medical evidence; however, the ALJ can discount Plaintiff’s statements based on the evidence as a whole. ... The Court finds the ALJ appropriately discounted Plaintiff's allegations of disabling pain, fatigue, and other symptoms based on the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount subjective symptom testimony when specific reasons supported by medical records, the claimant’s statements, and daily activities show inconsistency.

Damon v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-06

The Court further finds substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to disregard Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony as inconsistent with medical records, Plaintiff’s statements, and Plaintiff’s activities of daily life.

Section 404.1529(a) requires subjective symptoms to be assessed for consistency with objective and other evidence through a reasoned, evidence-supported analysis.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-19(a)

The ALJ considers a claimant’s subjective symptoms and whether they “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); See also SSR 16- 3p. ... The ALJ provided a thorough examination of various types of evidence. ... The Court finds no reversible error.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) permits daily activities, treatment response, examinations, and objective findings to be evaluated together when determining whether pain allegations require greater RFC restrictions.

Moncrief v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-09-21(c)(1)-(3)

The record reflects that the ALJ sufficiently addressed Plaintiff’s subjective statements in accordance with the regulations and considered the entire medical record when evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective statements. ... The ALJ noted that despite consistent reports of lower back pain, Plaintiff’s chiropractic records routinely showed that she reported doing more activity than alleged in either her function report or hearing testimony. ... Because the ALJ properly considered the objective medical evidence along with the other evidence in the record in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), the court finds that the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective statements is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms and their consistency with objective and other evidence, including medication, treatment, and daily activities.

Sabellico v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-25(a), (c)(3)

Section 404.1529(a) instructs ALJs to “consider all [of a claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see Barry v. Colvin, 606 F. App’x 621, 623 (2d Cir. 2015). ... Accordingly, the ALJ properly evaluated the evidence relating to these factors and explained her reasoning as to each in discounting Sabellico’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows an ALJ to weigh objective medical evidence together with subjective reports and determine the extent of alleged symptoms by their consistency with the entire record.

Doon v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-13(c)(2)

The ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s impairments and calculated Plaintiff’s RFC based on numerous factors. Tr. 86-88. Included in the ALJ’s decision is her analysis of both objective medical evidence and Plaintiff’s subjective reporting. Id. The ALJ demonstrated she weighed Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms against his record and determined the credibility of the former based on its consistency with the latter. Id. This was not in error but rather neatly comports with the dictates of the SSA’s rules and regulations.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective findings when the ALJ reads them with the whole decision and other symptom factors.

Graham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-13(c)(2)

Although the discussion was not specifically repeated in the SSR 16-3p analysis, the Court reads the ALJ’s decision as a whole and with common sense.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to limit the RFC to symptom restrictions supported by the record after evaluating objective evidence and other factors.

Meiners v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-09(c)(4)

The ALJ sufficiently evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms related to his PTSD and included limitations supported by the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to weigh subjective allegations against the record and explicitly consider relevant factors.

Seger v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-01(c)(3)

The ALJ acknowledged plaintiff’s reported symptoms and went on to weigh these allegations against the evidence of record as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Sections 404.1529(c)(1)–(4) permit consideration of medication, treatment, activities, relief measures, and inconsistencies when the ALJ compares complaints with the longitudinal record.

MCGUIRE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-08-12(c)(1)–(4)

Here, ALJ Scruton properly considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and explained his reasoning for finding Plaintiff’s statements not wholly supportive of a finding of disability.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to reject alleged symptom limitations exceeding the residual functional capacity when the ALJ considers the entire medical and nonmedical record and gives sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Reagen v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-31

Accordingly, we find the ALJ’s evaluation of the subjective evidence of the plaintiff’s symptoms is supported by substantial evidence and was reached based upon a correct application of the relevant law.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to assess the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of alleged symptoms against the entire administrative record.

Travis · filed 2025-12-09(c)

During the second step of this assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated when considered in light of the entire case record.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider all available evidence, including the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Tester-Kopec · filed 2025-12-15(c)(4)

ALJs must “consider all of the available evidence,” including a claimant’s “statements about the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of your symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ assessing symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects to examine the entire case record, including objective evidence, the claimant’s statements, source statements, and other relevant evidence.

Sherwood · filed 2026-02-17(c)

To make that determination, the ALJ must “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate alleged symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the entire case record.

Copertino v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-02-17(c)

Here, we conclude that the ALJ’s consideration of Copertino’s subjective symptoms is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the relevant symptom evidence but does not require the written decision to discuss every item considered, including every portion of the claimant’s hearing testimony.

Nigel S. v. Bisignano · filed 2025-12-18(c)(3)

But it is well established that an “ALJ can consider all of the evidence without directly addressing in his written decision every piece of evidence submitted by a party.” Kornecky v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 167 F. App’x 496, 508 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Loral Defense-Systems-Akron v. N.L.R.B., 200 F.3d 436, 453 (6th Cir. 1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Put otherwise, “[t]here is a difference between what the ALJ must consider versus what he must discuss.” Escobar v. Kijakazi, No. 3:21-cv-372, 2023 WL 2769090, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2023). An ALJ’s failure to discuss a claimant’s hearing testimony, accordingly, is not per se error, as Claimant alleges.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires analysis of symptom factors but not a methodical discussion of each factor when the ALJ acknowledges and examines them.

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

The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant’s subjective allegations of pain. ... The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective allegations.

Section 404.1529’s whole-record symptom evaluation does not require a separate express finding on the frequency of each symptom when the ALJ acknowledges the symptom evidence and explains a material inconsistency in reported frequency.

McQuain v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-20(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. ... In making that determination, the ALJ must “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” ... Debbie first argues that the ALJ failed to make any findings regarding the frequency of her seizures and headaches. ... The ALJ is not required to make such a finding. ... However, the ALJ noted that Debbie’s testimony that she had two to three seizures per week that left her unable to function afterward is inconsistent to the two to three seizures per month that she relayed to her providers.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) does not require extended analysis of an alleged migraine limitation when headaches are tangential to the claim, medical references are sparse, and only vague testimony addresses functional impact.

HEDMAN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-09-26(c)(4)

The only possible evidence of the actual functional impact of the headaches came from Plaintiff’s own vague testimony, and as noted, the ALJ did address that testimony. ... The ALJ was not, of course, required to accept Plaintiff’s testimony without question, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 363 (3d Cir. 2011), and here found that Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the limiting effects of her symptoms was not fully supported by the record. ... Here, given the lack of applicability of Dr. Santamaria’s notes as to Plaintiff’s functional limitations, there was no need for further discussion. ... Again, this is particularly true given that migraine headaches were, at best, a tangential issue in this case.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptoms from the entire case record and allows consideration of prior work and daily activities without requiring discussion of every item of evidence.

McNeal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-18(c)(3)–(4)

When evaluating the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must examine “the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; [a claimant’s] statements […]; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the [claimant’s] case record.” SSR 16-3p. An ALJ can also consider a claimant’s prior work record and daily activities. § 404.1529(c)(3). There is, however, no requirement that the ALJ “‘refer to every piece of evidence in his decision,’”.

Section 404.1529 does not require an ALJ to discuss every symptom allegation or use particular formulations when the decision shows that the claimant’s medical condition and subjective complaints were considered as a whole.

Hagins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-26(a)

Regardless, the ALJ is not obligated to discuss “every piece of evidence.” Dyer, 395 F.3d at 121. The ALJ “need not cite particular phrases or formulations” in conducting an assessment of a claimant’s symptoms so long as the reviewing court can be satisfied that the ALJ “considered [the claimant’s] medical condition as a whole.” Chatham v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 764 F. App’x 864, 868 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Stowe v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 2021 WL 2912477, at *4 (11th Cir. July 12, 2021) (per curiam) (explaining that if an ALJ does not identify specific and adequate reasons for rejecting a claimant's testimony about pain, “the record must be obvious as to the [ALJ's] credibility finding”) (citing Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561–62).

An ALJ need not cite evidence line by line when the decision considers the medical and nonmedical evidence, including subjective complaints, and explains its conclusions.

Tyrone T. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-11-05(c)(2)

This is not required under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). The ALJ properly considered all medical and non-medical evidence, including the claimant’s subjective complaints and the opinions of consulting physicians.

An ALJ need not expressly discuss every subjective complaint when a detailed record review substantially supports partial discounting and the RFC accommodates supported pain and positional limits.

STABILE · filed 2025-11-17(a)-(c)

In any event, the Court is not persuaded that the ALJ erred in his consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective statements, nor is the Court persuaded that Plaintiff’s testimony undermines the sufficiency of the ALJ’s RFC.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of medically supported symptoms, but an ALJ may analyze multiple sources of pain together by work function rather than proceeding symptom by symptom or repeatedly naming each diagnosis.

Artis · filed 2025-11-25(a)

In other words, instead of proceeding symptom by symptom (i.e., discussing the claimant’s sciatica, then her back pain not associated with sciatica), the ALJ properly engaged in a “function-by-function” assessment of how the claimant’s impairments “affect [her] ability to work.” Thomas, 916 F.3d at 311.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires symptom statements to be evaluated against the objective and other evidence as a whole, including inconsistencies and conflicts between the claimant's statements and the rest of the record.

Kelly v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-04-04(c)(4)

But the ALJ evaluates the evidence, such as the claimant’s statements about pain, “in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence” in its entirety and considers “whether there are any inconsistencies” or any “conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Based on his findings and consideration of the evidence, the ALJ found “inconsistencies . . . between [Plaintiff’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); (Tr. 35, 39, 40).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) evaluates symptom-related functional limits against all available evidence and recognizes them only to the extent reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Shivers v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-07(c)(4)

Your symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish your capacity for basic work activities to the extent that your alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. ... The court finds no error in the ALJ’s consideration of the plaintiff’s symptoms and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings as to this issue.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of symptoms and the extent to which they are reasonably consistent with the evidence of record.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-28

In making these factual findings regarding Johnson’s RFC, the ALJ considered her symptoms and the extent to which they could reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (revised Oct. 25, 2017).

An ALJ may reject symptom complaints that conflict with medical opinions, imaging, testing, and treatment history, so long as the rejection does not rest solely on the absence of objective corroboration.

Ford v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-07(c)

In sum, unlike in Arakas, here, the ALJ discredited Plaintiff's subjective complaints based on their inconsistencies with the record as a whole. See 983 F.3d at 97. In particular, the ALJ determined that the medical opinions of various providers, imaging, test results, and treatment history did not support Plaintiff's allegation that he was “not capable of doing anything.” ECF No. 8-3 at 28. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision to disregard Plaintiff's subjective complaints is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) does not require unquestioning acceptance of subjective complaints and instead directs the ALJ to assess how far alleged symptoms are reasonably consistent with objective and other record evidence.

Tibbles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-16(a)

However, an ALJ “is not required to accept the claimant’s subjective complaints without question.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010). To the contrary, “the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)) (alteration in original). ... Accordingly, Tibbles’s objections to the weighing of this evidence are without merit.

Section 404.1529(c) directs an ALJ to assess whether a claimant's allegations are consistent with the objective evidence and other record evidence.

Childs v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-25(c)

When assessing the reliability of a claimant’s allegations, an ALJ considers the extent to which those allegations are consistent with the objective evidence and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires a claimant's statements about symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects to be evaluated against objective medical and other evidence.

Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-31(c)(4)

An ALJ will consider a claimant’s “statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of their symptoms, and the ALJ will also evaluate the statements “in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom statements against objective and other evidence, including conflicts with medical history, findings, and source statements.

Dolan v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-27(c)(4)

We will consider your statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of your symptoms, and we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence, in reaching a conclusion as to whether you are disabled. We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your medical sources or other persons about how your symptoms affect you.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires comparison of a claimant's symptom statements with the rest of the evidence, including history, clinical findings, and statements from medical and other sources.

Cooper-Neal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-28(c)(4)

Notably, in considering a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ considers both inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which any conflicts exist between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence, including the claimant’s history, signs and laboratory findings, and statements by treating or nontreating sources or other persons about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) directs an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects to examine conflicts between a claimant's statements and the rest of the record.

Stedman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-02(c)(4)

ALJs consider the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms,” by examining the record as a whole. SSR 16-3P2017 WL 5180304. The ALJ considers “inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are conflicts between [a claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence . . ..” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c) requires seven symptom factors to be considered in relation to other evidence and conflicts between claimant statements and the record.

Andre v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-31(c)(3)-(4)

The factors must be considered “in relation to other evidence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.” Raper, 89 F.4th at 1277 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires symptom factors to be evaluated in relation to other evidence and conflicts between claimant statements and the record.

Durborow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-21(c)(4)

The factors must be considered “in relation to other evidence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.” Raper, 89 F.4th at 1277 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluation of whether self-reported symptoms and limitations are consistent with and supported by the record as a whole.

Boyd v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-21(c)

When considering a claimant’s self-reported symptoms and limitations, the ALJ must evaluate whether the claimant’s subjective statements are consistent with and supported by the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires consideration of symptom statements in relation to objective and other evidence.

Yates Jr v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-11(c)(4)

We will consider your statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of your symptoms, and we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires comparison of symptom statements with medical and other record evidence.

Brown v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-12(c)(3)

If a claimant makes statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effect of her symptoms, SSR 16-3p requires the ALJ to determine whether the statements are consistent with the medical and other evidence of record. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (explaining how the SSA evaluates symptoms, including pain).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires consideration of conflicts between a claimant's statements about symptom effects and the rest of the medical evidence.

Collins v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-19(c)(4)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4), an ALJ must consider when there are conflicts between a claimant’s statements about the limiting effects of their symptoms and the rest of the medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires symptom factors to be considered in relation to other evidence and conflicts between claimant statements and the record.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-20(c)(4)

The factors must be considered “in relation to other evidence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.” Raper, 89 F.4th at 1277 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires symptom factors to be considered in relation to other evidence and conflicts between claimant statements and the record.

Wiswall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-20(c)(4)

The factors must be considered “in relation to other evidence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.” Raper, 89 F.4th at 1277 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires subjective symptom statements to be evaluated for consistency with objective medical and other evidence.

Fino v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-13(c)(2)-(3)

The ALJ then must evaluate whether the claimant’s subjective statements about his symptoms are consistent with: (1) the objective medical evidence; and (2) the other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3); SSR 16-3p.

Under section 404.1529(c)(3), an ALJ may weigh a claimant's symptom statements against the medical record and reject them to the extent they are inconsistent with that record.

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

That is what ALJ Rouf did here: he weighed the evidence before him and determined that Plaintiff’s statements regarding the intensity, persisting, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not entirely consistent with his medical records. And re-weighing that evidence is not within the province of this Court.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) does not require an ALJ to accept a claimant’s symptom testimony without question when the ALJ identifies record evidence inconsistent with the claimed severity of the symptoms.

SHEARER v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-09-27(c)(4)

However, the ALJ specifically addressed Plaintiff’s claims of pain, fatigue, weakness, and blackouts but found that her testimony was not entirely consistent with the record. In so doing, the ALJ acknowledged that the record contained evidence showing cardiac and musculoskeletal abnormalities, as well as some findings of reduced strength and decreased range of motion. However, he also discussed Plaintiff’s generally unremarkable clinical findings demonstrating no gross motor or sensory deficits, normal strength, muscle tone, and gait, and regular cardio-vascular functioning. While he acknowledged that Plaintiff was not always able to take pain medication due to her aneurysm, he still emphasized that medication had been part of a regimen of generally conservative treatment. He further considered Plaintiff’s activities of daily living, which included performing a part-time job at near substantial gainful activity levels, in finding Plaintiff’s symptoms to be less impactful than she claimed them to be. (R. 18, 21-23). It is important to remember that an ALJ is not under an obligation to simply accept what the claimant said without question. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 363 (3d Cir. 2011).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) is satisfied when an ALJ identifies inconsistencies in the record that contradict the claimant’s testimony about subjective symptoms.

Scheck v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-28(c)(4)

Based on this record, the Court concludes that, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ complied with the requirements of § 404.1529(c)(4) and identified numerous inconsistencies in the record contradicting Plaintiff’s testimony about his subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to discount a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms when they are inconsistent with substantial medical and other record evidence.

West v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-16(c)

While West seems to point primarily to her own testimony, the ALJ found that West’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.” Id. at 37. The ALJ’s “evaluation of the credibility of subjective complaints is entitled to judicial deference if supported by substantial record evidence.” Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1024 (5th Cir. 1990). Here, the ALJ’s decision shows reliance on substantial evidence under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) in not finding West’s complaints and description of her limitations to be more persuasive.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ assessing disability symptoms to consider medical evidence, opinion evidence, and the claimant’s daily activities.

BOULWARE · filed 2025-12-12(c)

Given that the regulations obligated the ALJ to consider the medical evidence, opinion evidence, and Tyeisha B.’s daily activities when determining if she was disabled, see 20 CFR § 404.1529(c), the ALJ’s discussion of these factors was relevant because it “highlight[ed] the inconsistencies between [her] subjective symptoms and the record as a whole.” See Moon v. Berryhill, No. 18-323, 2018 WL 7002038, at *12 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2018).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ, after finding that an impairment could cause alleged symptoms, to consider inconsistencies and conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence.

White · filed 2025-12-15(c)(4)

Nevertheless, the ALJ must consider at the second step “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ to consider the entire record and determine whether the claimant’s statements are inconsistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Hidalgo · filed 2026-01-14(c)(4)

In this analysis, the ALJ must consider the entire record and determine “whether inconsistencies exist between the claimant’s statements and the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” Battie v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CIV-24444, 2022 WL 4000728, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2022) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4)).

Section 404.1529 permits finding alleged symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects inconsistent with the record after an appropriate review of medical evidence, testimony, and medical opinions.

Withrow · filed 2026-02-02(c)

However, the ALJ found Timothy’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence.” R. 17; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. The ALJ appropriately and extensively reviewed the evidence, including medical evidence, Timothy’s testimony, and medical opinion evidence. R. 17-26.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) directs the ALJ to consider inconsistencies and conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the remaining evidence, including history, medical findings, and source statements.

Burch · filed 2026-02-19(c)(4)

And while there need not be objective evidence of the pain itself or of its intensity, Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted), the adjudicator is directed to consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence, including the claimant’s history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by medical sources or other persons about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires the adjudicator to consider the entire record, including treatment and other symptom-relief measures, and to give specific, evidence-supported reasons for discounting symptom allegations.

Latham v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-30(c)

However, the ALJ must explain “the link between the evidence and” consistency determination. ... Because the ALJ did not address all of the relevant medical evidence relevant to the plaintiff’s manipulative limitations, such as to possible treatments and measures taken to alleviate her symptoms, it is not clear whether the ALJ considered the record as a whole. As such, the ALJ’s decision also did not adequately explain why he discounted the plaintiff’s complaints regarding manipulative limitations and pain from her physical impairments.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) requires an ALJ to identify the symptom statements being discounted and support that assessment with specific record evidence rather than general findings.

Debruzzi v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-25(c)(3)-(4)

General findings are insufficient, and the ALJ must identify which specific pain and symptom statements are being discounted and what evidence undermines those claims. ... The Court finds that remand is warranted because additional administrative proceedings could remedy the defects in the ALJ’s decision.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes medical evidence relevant to symptom severity but requires the ALJ to identify the disputed statements and explain how evidence undermines them.

(SS) Vargas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-28(c)(2)

The medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant's pain and its disabling effects. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). However, in considering Plaintiff’s symptom claims, the ALJ must specifically identify the statements he or she finds not to be credible, and the evidence that allegedly undermines those statements. ... Thus, to the extent the ALJ discounts Plaintiff’s symptom claims because they are uncorroborated by the medical evidence, this reason is not clear, convincing, and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount symptom testimony when no malingering evidence exists.

Nethercott-Boulinzann v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-20

At the second stage, 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.

Section 404.1529 requires specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount symptom testimony when no malingering evidence exists.

Myers v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-26

At the second stage, 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.

Section 404.1529 requires specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount symptom testimony when no malingering evidence exists.

Gann v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-28

At the second stage, if the record lacks 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.

Section 404.1529 requires specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount symptom testimony when no malingering evidence exists.

Christman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-29

At the second stage, 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.

Section 404.1529 requires specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount symptom testimony when no malingering evidence exists.

Liles v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-15

At the second stage, 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.

Section 404.1529 permits subjective symptoms to establish disability when supported by the required medical evidence, but an ALJ may discount them by articulating explicit and adequate reasons supported by the complete record.

Hampton · filed 2026-03-25(a)–(c)

To discredit a plaintiff’s statements, the ALJ must clearly “articulate explicit and adequate reasons.” ... Thus, contrary to Hampton’s arguments, the ALJ adequately explained that she gave some credence to Hampton’s subjective complaints but the severity of those complaints was not supported by the medical record as a whole.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits consideration of symptom improvement with treatment, and controllable or treatment-responsive impairments may weigh against total disability.

Reichert v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-18(c)(3)(v)

For instance, the ALJ considered Reichert’s improvement with treatment after the date of her alleged onset of disability. (Tr. 20 & 25); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v) (stating treatment for relief or other symptoms may be considered when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms); Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1148 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (stating “impairments that are controllable or amendable to treatment do not support a finding of total disability”). The ALJ’s determination that Reichert’s impairments improved with treatment is supported by substantial evidence.

Under § 404.1529(c)(3), treatment that substantially improves pain and functioning may undermine testimony alleging disabling pain.

Rothe v. O'Malley · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

Indeed, Christopher eventually received a “Right C2, C3, C4, and C5 Medial Branch Block” in September 2019, which he reported reduced his pain by 80 to 90%. ... The same notes indicate that his functionality improved and his quality of life “improved moderately.” ... The ALJ appropriately referenced this treatment and resulting improvement in her opinion, when assessing symptom complaints. ... As such, any error here is harmless because Christopher’s shoulder pain ultimately was treated and improved, which undermines his testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(vi) permits effective treatment that controls a claimant's symptoms to rebut subjective symptom testimony.

Stearns v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-03(c)(3)(iv)–(vi)

Effective treatment that controls a claimant’s symptoms can rebut subjective symptom testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(vi); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to discount symptom testimony when a positive response to treatment is supported by substantial evidence.

Howe v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-19(c)(3)

An ALJ may consider the amount and type of treatment in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). Evidence that treatments relieve symptoms can undermine a claim of disability. See Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff’s positive response to treatment is a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s testimony and is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats a claimant's response to treatment as an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence.

Hardin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-03(c)(3)

And how a claimant’s symptoms respond to treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(3), 416.929(3); see also Warre ex rel. E.T. IV v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “[i]mpairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for [social security disability] benefits”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom severity and permits a favorable treatment response to undermine allegations of debilitating limitations.

King v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-08(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); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication, and symptom improvement with prescribed drugs may support denying disability benefits.

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

Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ appropriately considered Plaintiff’s improvements to her attention and concentration due to her medication. “Evidence that medical issues can be improved when using prescribed drugs supports denial of disability benefits.” Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 564 Fed. App’x 758, 763 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Hardaway v. Secretary, 823 F.2d 922, 927 (6th Cir. 1987)); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (“Factors relevant to your symptoms, such as pain, which we will consider include . . . The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms . . . .”).

Subsection (c)(3) makes successful treatment an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence and permits improved symptoms to undermine more severe allegations.

McDaniel v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-12(c)(3)

If the record shows a claimant’s symptoms have improved with treatment, that improvement is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of ... symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). The Ninth Circuit has held that “evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability.” Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017).

Treatment effectiveness is a relevant consideration when assessing a claimant’s symptom allegations.

Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-18(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

Likewise, the ALJ did not err in noting improvement with treatment because treatment effectiveness is a relevant consideration in assessing symptom allegations.

The effectiveness of medication or other treatment is a relevant factor when determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

(SS) Crellin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-22(c)(3)

The effectiveness of medication or treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

An ALJ may reject an alleged disabling level of fatigue after considering the allegation and detailed medical evidence, including improvement with medication, diet, exercise, and physical therapy.

Quinto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-11(c)(3)-(4)

The ALJ, in finding that the claimed disabling level of Plaintiff’s fatigue was not entirely consistent with the evidence, discussed the medical evidence in detail, Tr. at 35-37, including reported improvement in Plaintiff’s condition with medication, as well as “diet, exercise, and some physical therapy.” Tr. at 36. Overall, the ALJ’s Decision makes clear that the fatigue allegation was adequately considered and rejected as a basis for a claimed disability.

Intermittent treatment and improvement with consistent medication may support discounting alleged symptom severity when the treatment records document that improvement.

Babb v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-16(c)(3)

These records support the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff had intermittent mental health treatment with wide gaps of no treatment within the relevant period. Tr. 25. Ongoing treatment began near the end of the relevant period, and during that period Plaintiff reported that medication was effective in helping alleviate his symptoms.

Section 404.1529 permits discounting autism- and anxiety-related symptom allegations based on repeated reports that medication controlled symptoms and consistently normal mental-status examinations, even after considering the claimant’s explanation that he told providers he was well because speaking with them was difficult.

Farias v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3), (c)(4)

By way of example, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his sensory issues and reluctance to speak with healthcare providers, the ALJ’s Decision notes that “[Plaintiff’s] autism prevents him from working due to sensory issues. . . . [Plaintiff] told his healthcare providers everything was okay because it is hard for him to talk, and he did not want to talk to the providers.” (R. 16). ... Among other evidence, the ALJ discussed: (i) Plaintiff’s statements that he could concentrate and keep up in school, was feeling well and getting A’s, and had stable symptoms (R. 17) (citing Exh. 1F); (ii) medical visits where Plaintiff consistently appeared well-groomed, with appropriate thought process, euthymic mood, and no outward symptoms of anxiety (R. 17-18) (citing Exhs. 1F, 3F); and (iii) Plaintiff’s repeated reports that his medications were controlling his symptoms.

Continued improvement documented across a longitudinal pain-treatment record, including substantial relief from a spinal cord stimulator, may support discounting alleged symptom severity.

Wulff v. O' Malley · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)

Given the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determination that there was evidence of continued improvement with pain management treatment throughout Plaintiff’s longitudinal treatment record, including significant improvement after use of a lumbar spinal cord stimulator, was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount mental-health symptom testimony based on longitudinal reports of improved sleep, anxiety, mood, and nightmares with medication and therapy, including corroborating improvement after the date last insured.

Evers · filed 2025-10-14(c)(3)

The ALJ’s observation that Plaintiff’s symptoms improved with therapy and medication is supported by substantial evidence in the record. For example, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s July 2020 report of improved sleep, anxiety, and mood; his August 2020 report that his nightmares had not been bothering him and his sleep and mood had improved; his April 2021 report of notable improvement in sleep with only one nightmare; and his May 2021 report of a stable sleep cycle. (Tr. 32-33.) The ALJ also cited evidence that Plaintiff had ”notable improvement” with Ketamine treatment following his date last insured. (Id. at 32.)

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms cannot alone establish disability.

OPFERMAN · filed 2025-12-11(a)

As confirmed by the applicable regulation, “statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 provides that a claimant's allegations alone cannot establish disability.

Grayson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-30

A claimant’s allegations alone can never establish that she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Under § 404.1529(a)-(b), a claimant's description of symptoms alone cannot establish disability.

Minks v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-01(a)-(b)

A claimant’s description of their symptoms will not alone establish disability. See id. §§ 404.1529(a)–(b), 416.929(a)–(b).

Section 404.1529(a) provides that subjective allegations of pain or other symptoms alone do not establish disability.

Bryant v.Kijakazi(CONSENT) · filed 2023-03-29(a)

“[A]n ALJ is not required to accept a claimant’s subjective allegations of pain or symptoms.” Turner, 2021 WL 3276596, at *9; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“[S]tatements about [a claimant’s] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [a claimant is] disabled.”).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of symptom statements and all available evidence but provides that statements alone cannot establish an impairment or disability.

DUPREY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-09-18(a)-(c)

Section 404.1529(a) requires an administrative law judge to consider a claimant’s statement of symptoms, including statements about pain resulting from those symptoms. However, those statements alone are not sufficient to establish a physical or mental impairment or disability. ... Because Judge Loewy engaged in the proper analysis, and sufficiently referenced not only Plaintiff’s own statements, but other evidence in the record supporting or negating those statements, this Court finds the decision was based on substantial evidence, and is therefore, affirmed.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires symptom-related restrictions to be reasonably consistent with objective and other evidence; an adjudicator need not impose a limitation for every alleged symptom or discuss every item of evidence.

Sanchez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-25(a), (c)(3)

These conclusory allegations fail to address a key component of § 404.1529(c)(3), that the disability decision will account for such evidence to the extent it “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” ... Sanchez does not explain how his subjective statements of bladder and bowel function are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence (and other evidence) such that they should be accounted for in the ALJ’s disability decision. ... Meanwhile, the ALJ’s decision accounted for Sanchez’s cauda equina. ... The ALJ’s duty is not to impose a limitation for every symptom nor discuss all evidence; rather, she must consider all evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) does not permit a claimant's allegation of pain or other symptoms, standing alone, to establish an impairment or disability.

Beatty-White v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-30(a)

Standing alone, a claimant’s allegation of pain or other symptoms is not enough to establish an impairment or disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Prokopick v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 272 Fed. App’x 196, 199 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Under the regulations, an ALJ may not base a finding of disability solely on a claimant’s statements about disabling pain . . . .”).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ assessing RFC to evaluate subjective allegations but does not allow a claimant's symptom statements alone to establish disability without medical signs and laboratory findings of a condition reasonably capable of causing them.

Tillett v. SSA · filed 2024-02-28(a)

In assessing a claimant's RFC, the Administrative Law Judge must necessarily consider the subjective allegations of the claimant and make findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Social Security Ruling 16-3p (“SSR 16-3p”). A claimant's statement that he is experiencing pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that he is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that subjective pain assertions alone cannot establish disability; they must be considered with evidence of an impairment reasonably expected to produce the symptoms.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-28(a)

That requirement stems from the fact that subjective assertions of pain alone cannot ground a finding of disability. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (effective March 27, 2017) (“statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled”).

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant’s statements alone cannot establish the existence or severity of an impairment.

TAYLOR-HARMON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-04-16(a)

On their own, however, Plaintiff’s statements cannot establish the existence or severity of an impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(a) provides that subjective complaints alone are insufficient to establish disability.

NOLAN v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-05-14(a)

A claimant’s subjective complaints of symptoms alone are insufficient for establishing disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

A medical diagnosis does not by itself require a finding of a disabling impairment because the relevant inquiry is the claimant’s ability to work.

Griffith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-21

The existence of a diagnosis or condition does not require an ALJ to find that a claimant suffers from a disabling impairment; the inquiry is focused on the claimant’s ability to work.

A claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms do not alone establish disability; medical signs and laboratory findings must show an impairment reasonably expected to cause the alleged symptoms.

Biggs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-25(a)

A claimant’s statement that she is experiencing pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that she is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

A medically determinable impairment and an allegation of disabling pain do not automatically establish severity at step two; the ALJ may evaluate the allegation against all the record evidence.

Ivey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-09(a)

Although step two “requir[es] no more than a de minimis showing,” Glanden, 86 F.4th at 843, this does not mean a claimant will always survive step two simply by identifying a medically determinable impairment and claiming to suffer from disabling pain as a result of that impairment.

Section 404.1529(a) does not require an ALJ to credit symptom testimony or add corresponding RFC limitations when the claimant provides no supporting medical evidence.

HAYNES · filed 2026-01-05(a)

Plaintiff mistakenly assumes that the ALJ was required to credit his migraine testimony and fashion appropriate limitations. But see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) ("[S]tatements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled."). Plaintiff, as a claimant, "bears the burden to prove [he] is disabled by producing medical evidence." Gedatus, 994 F.3d at 905.

Under subsection 404.1529(a), symptom statements alone cannot establish disability; objective medical evidence from an acceptable source must show an impairment reasonably capable of producing the alleged symptoms, and all evidence must support disability.

Copenhaver · filed 2026-01-13(a)

The most recent amendments to the regulations also tweaked the manner in which the SSA evaluates symptoms, including pain: In determining whether [the claimant is] disabled, [the SSA will] consider all [the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. [The SSA] will consider all [the claimant’s] statements about [his or her] symptoms, such as pain, and any description [the claimant’s] medical sources or nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect [the claimant’s] activities of daily living and [his or her] ability to work. Id. § 404.1529(a). But the SSA clarified that statements about [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [the claimant is] disabled. There must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows [the claimant has] a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and that, when considered with all of the other evidence (including statements about the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms which may reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings), would lead to a conclusion that [the claimant is] disabled. Id.

Subsection 404.1529(a) provides that symptom statements alone do not establish disability and requires objective medical evidence from an acceptable source that would support a disability conclusion.

May · filed 2026-02-09(a)

Although the records reflect periods of symptom exacerbation and fluctuation (particularly in response to situational stressors such as the loss of family members and interpersonal conflicts), the ALJ reasonably weighed the medical evidence and treatment history in concluding that May’s subjective complaints of disabling psychological limitations were not fully supported by the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“[S]tatements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled. There must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that . . . would lead to a conclusion that you are disabled.”’).

Subsection 404.1529(a) requires objective evidence corroborating the alleged symptoms and limitations, so a claimant is not presumed disabled merely from the nature of a later multiple-sclerosis diagnosis.

Blough · filed 2026-03-03(a)

However, the ALJ was not tasked with considering the general presentation of multiple sclerosis, but rather the specific symptoms and limitations that were shown in the administrative record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (a finding of disability cannot be made based upon symptoms alone and must be corroborated by objective evidence). ... Simply put, Plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of disability due to the nature of multiple sclerosis.

Subsection 404.1529(a) prevents a claimant's symptom statements alone from establishing disability when no medical evidence supports the asserted functional loss.

Milburn · filed 2026-03-23(a)

She cites no medical evidence to support that she has lost control of her hand or that she has visual impairments that have not been corrected. She cites only her own statements. (DE 12 Bf. 11-12; AR 231, 235.) A claimant's statements about her symptoms cannot alone establish disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Bailey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 623 F. Supp. 2d 889, 909 (W.D. Mich. 2009).

Under subsections 404.1529(b) and (c)(1)-(3), subjective complaints alone cannot establish disability and must be evaluated with objective clinical signs, laboratory findings, and other relevant evidence.

MCGINNESS · filed 2026-05-15(b), (c)(1)-(3)

The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, alone, can never establish liability and the ALJ would have had to at least reference objective clinical signs and lab results which would have supported Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(b) and (c)(1)-(3). Because no such findings in the medical record as a whole support Plaintiff’s complaints and because the ALJ’s determination demonstrates (as quoted above) that she did in fact consider Plaintiff’s complaints, the Court will deny the Plaintiff’s motion in this regard also.

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

Lyons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-11(a)

As the relevant Social Security regulations make clear, however, a claimant's “statements about [her] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [she is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also, Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir.1997) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

A claimant’s allegation of pain or other symptoms alone cannot establish an impairment or disability.

Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-14(a)

Standing alone, a claimant’s allegation of pain or other symptoms is not enough to establish an impairment or disability.

Section 404.1529(a) requires objective medical evidence of an impairment capable of causing the alleged symptoms; a claimant’s statements alone cannot establish disability.

Mulheron v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-02(a)

Plaintiff notes that he explained the severity of his predicament at the hearing (Pl.’s Br. at 5), but the ALJ was not required to accept his testimony.

A claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms alone cannot establish disability.

McCarthy v. Saul · filed 2022-03-08(a)

But, contentions or claims alone will not do it.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven factors including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Dubie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-12(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Ross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 794 F. App’x 858, 867 (11th Cir. 2019).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven factors including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-12(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Ross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 794 F. App’x 858, 867 (11th Cir. 2019).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven factors including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Olivares v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-12(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Ross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 794 F. App’x 858, 867 (11th Cir. 2019).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven factors including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Alberti v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-15(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Ross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 794 F. App’x 858, 867 (11th Cir. 2019).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires meaningful application of the listed symptom factors rather than a bare assertion that the regulation was followed.

Joseph v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-07-24(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

Thus, because the ALJ insufficiently applied the factors in § 404.1529(c)(3), remand is appropriate.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and pain-relief measures.

BARBEE v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-07-25(c)(3)

At step two of the Rule 16-3 analysis, the ALJ considers the claimant's subjective symptom allegations in light of the claimant's daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain and limiting effects of other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; treatment other than medication for relief of pain; and other measures taken to relieve pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires careful consideration of all symptom evidence through seven factors including daily activities and symptom characteristics.

Wickham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-30(c)(3)

The ALJ must “‘carefully consider’ all the evidence presented by claimants regarding their symptoms, which fall into seven relevant factors including ‘daily activities’ and the ‘location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [their] pain or other symptoms.’” Del Carmen Fernandez v. Berryhill, No. 18-CV-326, 2019 WL 667743, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2019) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); see also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, 81 FR 14166-01 at 14169-70, 2016 WL 1020935 (Mar. 16, 2016)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires a seven-factor inquiry covering daily activities, pain characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Watson v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-04-29(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment, relief measures, and other functional limitations.

Hoerauf v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2024-03-21(c)(3)

The ALJ must first confirm that objective medical evidence of the underlying condition exists, and then determine whether that condition could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged subjective symptom(s), considering other evidence, including: (1) daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the symptom(s); (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; (5) treatment, other than medication received; (6) any means used to relieve the symptom(s); and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of objective evidence, daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional restrictions.

Lynch v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-21(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The ALJ must consider objective medical evidence, as well as information regarding (i) the claimant’s daily activities; (ii) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of his or her symptoms; (iii) any precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken; (v) treatment other than medication used to relieve the claimant’s symptoms; (vi) any measures used to relieve his or her symptoms; and (vii) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions resulting from the claimed symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(ii) requires an ALJ to consider daily activities and the duration, frequency, and intensity of pain as part of the symptom evaluation.

Watts v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)(i)–(ii)

Additionally, the ALJ considered the intensity of Plaintiff’s pain, including Plaintiff’s repeated statements to her podiatrist that she was pain free after recovering from her surgery/infections (Tr. 25, 763-65, 775, 778-79). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(ii); Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322. The ALJ’s symptom evaluation also involved consideration of Plaintiff’s daily activities, which the ALJ concluded were, at least at times, greater than alleged and involved taking care of young kids and housework (Tr. 26, 781). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment, relief measures, and other relevant factors.

BREWINGTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-01-29(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

In addition to the objective medical evidence in the record, at the second step the ALJ considers factors relevant to the claimant’s symptoms including: (1) daily activities; (2) location, duration, and frequency of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; (5) treatment, other than medication; (6) other measures taken to relieve pain; and (7) other factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires a seven-factor inquiry covering daily activities, pain characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Linton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-30(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment, relief measures, and other functional limitations at the second step.

Albright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-28(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

At the second step, the ALJ must consider: (1) plaintiffs daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of plaintiffs pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication plaintiff takes or has taken to relive her pain or other symptoms; (5) other treatment a plaintiff receives or has received to relieve her pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures that a plaintiff takes or has taken to relieve her pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning plaintiffs functional limitations and restrictions due to his pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)@)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, pain characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment and relief measures, and resulting functional restrictions when objective evidence does not substantiate alleged pain and limitations.

Echevarria v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-27(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven symptom factors and explicit, adequate reasons for rejecting subjective symptoms.

Timmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-29(c)(3)

symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). To reject the claimant’s assertions of subjective symptoms, “explicit and adequate reasons” must be articulated by the ALJ. Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225; see also Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210; Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837, 839 (11th Cir. 1992).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven symptom factors and explicit, adequate reasons for rejecting subjective complaints.

Thurston v. Kizakazi · filed 2023-03-29(c)(3)

symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii). To reject the claimant’s assertions of subjective symptoms, “explicit and adequate reasons” must be articulated by the ALJ. Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225; see also Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210; Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837, 839 (11th Cir. 1992).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii) requires a seven-factor inquiry when pain allegations are not objectively substantiated, including daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures, and other functional restrictions.

Puliga v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-22(c)(3)(i)–(vii)

This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider daily activities and benign objective examination findings among the regulatory factors.

Danner · filed 2026-03-09(c)(3)

However, our review of the ALJ’s decision and the record as a whole reveals that the ALJ’s evaluation of her symptoms complied with the regulations. On this score, while the plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s reliance on her activities of daily living and benign objective examination findings in assessing her subjective reports, these are precisely the types of factors the ALJ is empowered to explore in this evaluation.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) and (c)(4) permit comparison of symptom allegations with daily activities and objective medical evidence.

Offord v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-29(c)(3)(i), (c)(4)

Additionally, ALJs are tasked with evaluating whether subjective allegations are consistent with everyday activities, objective medical evidence, and other record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), (4). ... In summary, the ALJ’s evaluation of plaintiff’s subjective allegations was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) permits daily activities, objective medical evidence, treatment history, and treatment effectiveness to support discounting subjective symptom allegations.

(SS) Flax v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-15(c)(2)-(3)

The ALJ properly found that plaintiff's demonstrated capabilities did not support, and in fact undermined, her allegations of disabling mental limitations. A claimant’s daily activities are relevant to an ALJ’s credibility determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... The ALJ’s determination that plaintiffs subjective statements did not align with the medical record and history of conservative treatment is well supported; there is no error here.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence and daily activities together when assessing symptom-related work limitations.

Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-05(c)(2), (c)(3)(i)

In addition to considering the objective medical evidence, the also ALJ appropriately considered Plaintiff’s activities of daily living. Tr. 38-39; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (consideration of objective medical evidence); 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i) (consideration of daily activities).

Section 404.1529(c) permits objective medical evidence and daily activities to be considered together in evaluating subjective symptoms.

Bogle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-29(c)(2), (c)(3)(i)

In addition to considering the objective medical evidence, the also ALJ appropriately considered Plaintiff’s reported activities. Tr. 26; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (consideration of objective medical evidence); 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i) (consideration of daily activities).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence, together with a claimant’s reported ability to perform day-to-day tasks and provide care, to support a finding that alleged mental symptoms are not fully limiting.

BROWN · filed 2025-12-02(c)(2)

Here, not only does Judge Lee’s credibility determination receive a high degree of deference, but Judge Lee supported his determination with extensive evidence in the record. ... Judge Lee pointed to significant objective medical evidence that suggested Robyn’s mental impairments—while severe—were not so severe as to prevent her from engaging in light work, subject to additional limitations. ... Furthermore, Judge Lee discussed Robyn’s own July 2020 function report and November 2021 pre-remand hearing testimony, where Robyn herself indicated she was capable of handling many day-to-day tasks, as well as taking care of her children and mother-in-law. ... Thus, Judge Lee’s determination that Robyn’s subjective complaints were “not consistent with the evidence in the record” is supported by substantial evidence and given reasonable deference.

Subsection 404.1529(c) requires objective medical evidence to be considered together with other factors, including daily activities, when evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

MAHAN · filed 2026-06-08(c)

Further, in connection with her determination that certain evidence was not entirely consistent with Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the limiting effects of his symptoms, the ALJ cited (a) medical evidence showing normal imaging, primarily normal mental status exams, and treatment for physical and psychiatric issues from 2017 through 2021 and (b) Plaintiff’s reported activities of daily living in 2022 and 2023. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (explaining that objective medical evidence should be considered in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effect of alleged symptoms along with other factors, including claimant’s daily activities).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to characterize mental-health care consisting only of medication from a primary-care provider, without specialist or acute care, as conservative treatment bearing on alleged limitations.

Beatty · filed 2025-11-25(c)(3)(iv), (c)(3)(v)

But the ALJ explained why Beatty’s care was conservative—it consisted of medication provided by his primary-care doctor rather than a specialist. Tr. 26. This was accurate and appropriate. ... The type of treatment is a proper basis for discounting Beatty’s reports of limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv),(v) (the ALJ considers treatment, including medication, that the claimant receives).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant, but the ALJ's improvement finding must be supported by the complete record.

Duckworth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-04(c)(3)

The effectiveness of medication and treatment is relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). However, the ALJ’s assessment is only partially supported by the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) permits an ALJ to consider medication, a conservative course of treatment, and the treatment’s effectiveness when weighing allegedly disabling symptom limitations.

Hebert v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-11(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

Plaintiff also faults the ALJ for observing that his symptoms improved with medication and conservative treatment. ... However, it was entirely proper for the ALJ to consider Plaintiff’s medication and conservative course of treatment when weighing his allegations of disabling limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v). The ALJ observed that Plaintiff received only conservative treatment, and that the record reflected this treatment was effective in relieving Plaintiff’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v) (ALJ entitled to consider routine and conservative nature of claimant’s treatment when assessing credibility); ... In sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the ALJ’s assessment of his symptom allegations was patently wrong.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) permits an ALJ to consider medication use and the level and conservatism of treatment when evaluating subjective complaints.

Rogalski v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-05-10(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

The ALJ determined the use of NSAIDs for pain and the limited course of treatment suggests his symptoms are not as intense and limiting as alleged. Despite Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ erred in considering this evidence, the regulations allow the ALJ to consider Plaintiff’s level of treatment and use of medication in evaluating his subjective complaints, which the ALJ appropriately did so here. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (ALJ may consider medication and treatment); Bernard v. Colvin, 774 F.3d 482, 488 (8th Cir. 2014) (an impairment that is “controllable or amenable to treatment [does] not support a finding of total disability”) (internal quotation omitted).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to discount subjective complaints based on conservative treatment without identifying a more aggressive alternative treatment that would have been appropriate.

Cullom v. Saul · filed 2023-05-12(c)(3)(v)

Accordingly, an ALJ may properly discount a claimant’s subjective complaints based on conservative treatment without theorizing what alternative procedures would be necessary were the condition more severe.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) permits an ALJ to consider medication and conservative treatment when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence.

Hackford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-25(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

In addition to the overall objective evidence and Dr. Schwab’s opinion, the ALJ also appropriately considered that Plaintiff sought only conservative treatment for her impairments, including Botox and trigger point injections for her migraines (Tr. 419-48), massage therapy for cervical myofascial pain (Tr. 432, 756), and took only ibuprofen for pain (Tr. 390, 489). ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (medication and treatment received are considered when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms); ... Based on the foregoing, there was more than substantial support for the ALJ’s RFC finding, including Dr. Schwab’s opinion the objective medical evidence, treatment records showing normal examination findings and mostly conservative treatment, as well as Plaintiff’s acknowledged activities and abilities. Accordingly, the Court finds no error.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits consideration of conservative treatment as one symptom-evaluation factor, although the extent of treatment does not necessarily establish the claimant's functional limits.

Perkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-06(c)(3)(v)

Courts routinely uphold an ALJ’s consideration of the conservative nature of a claimant’s treatment as one factor in evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms. ... While the extent of treatment pursued does not necessarily translate into the extent to which a claimant is functionally limited, the Court is not persuaded that the ALJ’s consideration of plaintiff’s level and type of treatment was inappropriate.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) makes the amount, type, and effectiveness of treatment important in evaluating symptom allegations, and the absence of mental-health counseling may undermine claimed disabling anxiety when no evidence attributes that limited treatment to the impairment.

Shank v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-22(c)(3)-(4)

However, the amount, type, and effectiveness of treatment are important considerations when weighing a claimant’s allegations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)-(c)(4), 416.929(c)(3)-(c)(4); SSR 16-3p at *8. ... Thus the ALJ properly found the absence of any evidence of mental health counseling in Plaintiff’s record, and only a prescription from his primary care provider for depression medication, detracted from Plaintiff’s claim of disabling anxiety.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits conservative treatment to undermine allegations of disabling seizures where specialist involvement is minimal, hospitalization is absent, medication remains subtherapeutic, and adjustment produces improvement.

(SS) Lara v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-07(c)(3)

The ALJ also noted that, despite Plaintiff’s statements of total disablement as a result of her seizure disorder, the medical record shows that she did not regularly treat with a neurologist, and that her first visit with a neurologist during the relevant period was not until October 2020. ... Plaintiff had no emergency room visits or hospitalizations for seizures or headaches during the relevant period. ... Moreover, at a neurology follow up appointment in March 2021, Plaintiff reported that in the past two months she noted fewer “bigger seizures” and “felt better” when her medication was adjusted. ... Given the substantial evidence of a conservative treatment regimen used to treat Plaintiff’s seizure disorder, the ALJ was entitled to discount Plaintiff’s credibility on this basis.

Routine or conservative treatment does not undermine symptom testimony unless the adjudicator explains why the treatment was conservative and identifies more aggressive treatment that was available and appropriate.

(SS) Calsada v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-18(c)(3)

Finally, “the fact that treatment may be routine or conservative is not a basis for finding subjective symptom testimony unreliable absent discussion of the additional, more aggressive treatment options the ALJ believes are available.” ... Thus, an ALJ errs in rejecting subjective complaints on these grounds if he “failed to explain why [the treatment] is routine or conservative or what more aggressive treatment was available and appropriate for Plaintiff.” ... Here, the ALJ attempts to support the rejection of Plaintiff’s back pain symptoms by noting he has not undergone surgery “or even standard treatment such as chiropractic treatment or epidural steroid injections for his back.” ... However, the ALJ also acknowledged that “no aggressive treatment was recommended for his impairments,” nor does the Court discern evidence in the record of more aggressive treatment actually recommended by Plaintiff’s treating physicians. ... Thus, this not a clear and convincing reason to reject Plaintiff’s symptom claims.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits treatment amount and conservatism to inform symptom intensity and persistence, but conservative treatment cannot support rejection when the claimant has a good reason for not seeking more aggressive care.

Blessing v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-26(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.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to characterize treatment as conservative based on the record without making an improper medical judgment.

DAVID v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-06-28(c)(3)(v)

Such analysis does not amount to a medical judgment, but an evidentiary one; the ALJ is not finding that conservative treatment was appropriate but that the record evidences such treatment.

Section 404.1529(c) permits discounting symptom testimony when conservative treatment effectively controls the symptoms and the ALJ supports that conclusion with substantial evidence.

Megrditchian v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-09(c)

As a reason for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony, the ALJ concluded that evidence in the record supported a finding that “conservative outpatient mental health treatment is effective in controlling [Plaintiff’s] symptoms.” (AR 24 (citing AR 112–43).) This is a specific, clear and convincing reason for discounting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider conservative treatment when evaluating symptoms, but the ALJ must also consider why the claimant may have received only conservative treatment.

Zuber, Jay v. Kijakazi, Kilolo · filed 2024-09-20(c)(3)

As for Zuber’s therapy records, an ALJ may consider whether a claimant has received only conservative treatment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). But the ALJ must also consider why the claimant may have received only conservative treatment, including whether the claimant’s mental illness “may [have] prevent[ed] the sufferer from taking [his] prescribed medicines or otherwise submitting to treatment.” Kangail v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 627, 630 (7th Cir. 2006).

Section 404.1529(c) permits conservative treatment to be considered when evaluating a claimant’s statements about the severity of symptoms.

(SS) Baldwin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-11(c)

The treatment Plaintiff received, especially when conservative, is a legitimate consideration in a credibility finding. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); see also Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (the ALJ properly considered the physician’s failure to prescribe, and the claimant’s failure to request, medical treatment commensurate with the “supposedly excruciating pain” alleged). ... Consequently, the conservative treatment supports the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s testimony concerning the severity of his symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s conservative treatment when assessing the severity of reported symptoms.

Hajdarevic v. O'Malley · filed 2025-04-03(c)(3)

While the plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s consideration of his conservative treatment as a factor in assessing his symptoms, this is one of the seven relevant factors identified by the Social Security regulations which must aid in the ALJ’s symptom analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Medication management does not support rejecting symptom testimony when the ALJ neither validly characterizes the treatment as conservative nor explains how it conflicts with the alleged severity.

(SS) Shane Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-22(c)

The ALJ also did not provide any findings regarding how Plaintiff’s “medication management” conflicted with his hearing testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms. Thus, the treatment received was not a clear and convincing reason to reject Plaintiff’s testimony.

Subsections (c)(3)(iv) and (v) allow conservative medication and nonmedication treatment to weigh against disabling pain when the ALJ’s application of those factors is sufficiently clear and supported alongside objective evidence.

Oslavic v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-26(c)(2), (c)(3)(iv)-(v)

Thus, the ALJ’s application of the regulatory factors to conclude Ms. Oslavic’s treatment was conservative and thus suggestive of a non-disabling—though limiting—condition is sufficiently clear.

Under subsection (c), long-term escalating narcotics, muscle relaxers, ineffective physical therapy, and recommended additional surgery cannot be characterized as conservative treatment when evaluating pain.

Lawson · filed 2025-09-26(c)

Claimant’s high and increasing doses of narcotic pain medication over an eight-month period, as well as use of muscle relaxers, ineffective physical therapy, and recommendations for additional surgical procedures cannot be considered a conservative course of treatment.

Conservative treatment is one permissible factor among many in a § 404.1529 symptom analysis.

BISIGNANO · filed 2026-02-26(c)(3)(iv)

Conservative treatment is one factor among many that the ALJ can consider in conducting the subjective symptom analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv); Sienkiewicz v. Barnhart, 409 F.3d 798, 803-04 (7th Cir. 2005).