20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits consideration of conservative treatment when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Kennedy v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-16(c)(3)(v)

It was appropriate for the ALJ to consider the conservative nature of treatment in assessing Kennedy’s credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider conservative treatment when evaluating reported symptoms without identifying a more aggressive treatment the claimant should have received.

Harrell v. Saul · filed 2023-03-29(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) permits consideration of treatment and medication when evaluating symptoms, but calling treatment conservative without explaining why does not justify discounting symptom testimony.

Becerra v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-14(c)(3)

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s treatment and medication in evaluating a claimant’s symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... The ALJ’s characterization of Plaintiff’s treatment as conservative was not a clear reason to reject Plaintiff’s testimony because the ALJ does not explain why this treatment regimen would be considered conservative.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s course of treatment when evaluating symptoms; conservative treatment may weigh against the claimed severity of those symptoms.

Mattingly v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-26(c)(3)(v)

The regulations call for the ALJ to consider the course of treatment in this analysis, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and courts regularly affirm an ALJ’s finding that a conservative course of treatment militates against a disability finding.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes the amount of treatment a factor in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms; an ALJ must have substantial evidence to characterize that treatment as conservative.

Shumate v. Bisignano · filed 2025-10-08(c)(3)

The amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” ... In sum, the ALJ’s discounting of Plaintiff’s testimony because her treatment was conservative is not a specific, clear, and convincing reason supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Once objective evidence establishes an impairment that could produce the alleged symptoms, § 404.1529(c) does not require objective evidence of the pain or its intensity, and a claimant may prove severity through subjective evidence alone, especially for fibromyalgia.

Smoot v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-05-24(b)-(c)

First, the ALJ must assess the objective medical evidence and determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). If the first step is met, the ALJ then determines how the extent and severity of those symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The Fourth Circuit has “consistently held that ‘while there must be objective medical evidence of some condition that could reasonably produce the pain, [at the second step,] there need not be objective evidence of the pain itself or its intensity.’” ... Under Arakas, claimants are “entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence” to prove the severity and extent of their symptoms. ... An ALJ may not “‘improperly increase[ the claimant’s] burden of proof’ by effectively requiring her subjective descriptions of her symptoms to be supported by objective medical evidence.” ... Because the ALJ did not evaluate Plaintiff’s symptoms of pain during the relevant time period, I am left to infer that the ALJ based her conclusion on a lack of objective medical evidence. ... This is legal error.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence only at the first step to establish an impairment capable of producing symptoms; the second step is a broader inquiry requiring consideration of the combined conditions and all other symptom information.

Holloway · filed 2026-03-20(a)-(c)

In determining an individual’s RFC, the ALJ is required to follow a two-step process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. The first step requires “objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source” to demonstrate an impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. Id. The second step entails a broader inquiry, looking beyond the objective medical evidence, considering all reported medical conditions (in combination), and requiring the ALJ to “carefully consider any other information” an individual may submit regarding his symptoms, including “statements about the intensity and persistence of . . . pain.” Id. ... In conducting this second step evaluation, the presence of “objective medical evidence” is no longer controlling.

After finding an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, an ALJ must separately evaluate the symptoms’ intensity and persistence and determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

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

Further, the SSA has emphasized that each step within the symptom ... evaluation constitutes a separate inquiry, such that “a finding that [a claimant’s] impairments could reasonably be expected to produce [his] pain or other symptoms does not involve a determination as to the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects” of those symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (emphasis added).

Once an ALJ finds an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, the second step requires consideration of the entire record in assessing the symptoms’ intensity and persistence.

WOODARD v. BISIGNANO · filed 2025-08-19(c)

Having made this determination, the AL] was then required, at the second step of the subjective statement analysis, to “consider the entire case tecord” when assessing the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff's symptoms.

Under subsection 404.1529(c), the second step assesses symptom intensity, persistence, and functional effects from the entire case record, including medical findings and opinions as well as information about symptoms and their effect on work.

Bowers · filed 2026-02-27(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, diagnosis 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. Id.

At the second step of symptom evaluation, an ALJ must examine the entire record and may not disregard statements about intensity, persistence, and limiting effects solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Collins v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-17(b)–(c)

In making that determination, the ALJ must “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” Id. (emphasis added). “At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled.”

The symptom analysis was upheld where the ALJ considered the entire record and explained why the claimant's alleged limitations were inconsistent with the evidence.

MCARN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-09-25(b)–(c)

In the present case, as instructed by the regulations, the ALJ considered the entire case record and explained the reasons for deviating from Plaintiff's statements regarding the impact of his symptoms on his ability to work.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ at the second step to assess symptom intensity and persistence from the entire record and accurately evaluate conflicts between a claimant's statements and other evidence.

Davids v. Andrew Saul Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-06(c)(1), (c)(4)

ALJ Pease erred at the second step, when evaluating the intensity and persistence of Mr. D.’s symptoms, by failing to acknowledge any of Mr. D.’s testimony regarding his personal care and daily activities, and then incorrectly stating that Mr. D. did not report any issues with those activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)–(2) requires subjective symptoms and limitations to be evaluated against the entire case record, including objective medical evidence and treatment records.

Lynema v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-05(c)(1)–(2)

First, the ALJ recognized and applied the correct criteria to evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms and limitations in light of the entire case record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)–(2), 416.929(c)(1)–(2).

Section 404.1529(c) requires subjective complaints to be assessed from the entire record, including medical and third-party statements, daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and other functional restrictions.

BRINSON v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-01-17(c)(1), (c)(3)(i)–(vii)

To analyze a claimant subjective complaints, the ALJ considers the entire record, including the medical records; third-party and Plaintiff’s statements; the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; the type and dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; precipitating and aggravating factors; treatment, other than medication, received for pain or other symptoms; and other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions. 20 C.F.R § 404.1529(c)(1), (3)(i-vii).

Section 404.1529(c)(1)–(3) requires evaluation of symptoms from the entire record, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication effectiveness, treatment, and other relief measures.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-05(c)(1)–(3)

Evaluating an individual’s symptoms requires an ALJ to examine the entire record, including the individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)–(3). The ALJ should consider factors such as daily activities, the location and frequency of the symptoms, aggravating factors, effectiveness of medication, and more. Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) requires an ALJ to compare symptom reports with objective medical evidence and the other evidence in the record.

Mcclain v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-09(c)(2)–(3)

As noted previously, it is the ALJ who must evaluate the intensity and persistence of any symptoms reported by the plaintiff. See SSR 16-3p. In that role, the ALJ must compare a plaintiff's reports to the objective medical evidence and the other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)–(3), 416.929(c)(2)-(3); SSR 16-3p.

Sections 404.1529(b)–(c) require examination of the entire record at the second step, including statements, source information, and other evidence.

Smith v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-07(b)–(c)

In making that determination, the ALJ must “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” Id.

Subsection (c)(1) requires an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to consider all available medical and nonmedical evidence about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

Griffin-Normand v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2022-03-21(c)(1)

When evaluating the intensity and persistence of a plaintiff’s symptoms, the ALJ “consider[s] all of the available evidence from [] medical sources and nonmedical sources about how [the] symptoms affect [the plaintiff].” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1).

Subsection (c)(1) requires consideration of observations from family, neighbors, friends, and other nonmedical sources when evaluating how symptoms affect a claimant.

Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-05(c)(1)

Despite this, other relevant regulations indicate that an ALJ must consider evidence from nonmedical sources when evaluating a claim of disability, which includes observations made by a claimant's family, neighbors, friends, or other persons. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 404.1545(a)(1), 404.1545(a)(3).

An ALJ may consider daily activities when the symptom assessment also considers the claimant’s allegations, objective evidence, and the other relevant regulatory factors across the whole record.

Leffler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-19(c)(3)

While true that the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s daily routine, the ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s allegations against the objective evidence in the record and other considerations outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Simply put, the ALJ took account of the whole record when making his findings.

An ALJ adequately evaluates subjective symptoms by reasonably reading the record, reconciling competing medical opinions, and appropriately considering the claimant’s daily activities.

Jenkins · filed 2025-09-08(c)(3)

In sum, as discussed above, the ALJ’s decision was based on a reasonable reading of the record, a well-supported reconciliation of the competing medical opinions, and appropriate consideration of Plaintiff’s activities of daily living.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of all available evidence when evaluating symptoms, and an ALJ may not selectively rely only on evidence supporting the decision without adequate explanation.

Bailey · filed 2026-01-06(a)

Moreover, the Commissioner’s reliance on the characterization of Plaintiff’s participation in activities of daily living as “intact,” (Comm’r’s Br., pp. 6-7), to justify the ALJ’s credibility determination misses the mark not only because some participation in everyday activities does not automatically disqualify a claimant from disability, Lewis v. Callhan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir. 1997), but the ALJ is required by the Commissioner’s own regulations to consider all medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (explaining evaluation of symptoms, including pain, include consideration of all “available evidence, including your medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements about your symptoms affect you”). While the ALJ need not mention every piece of evidence in the record, Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1211, neither may the ALJ cherry-pick only the portions of evidence supportive of the decision without adequate explanation.

At the second step under § 404.1529(c), an ALJ determines whether statements about symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects are substantiated by the entire case record.

White · filed 2026-02-23(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 considering the entire case record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of all record evidence to determine how symptoms limit work-related activities.

Desanto · filed 2026-03-16(c)

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(c) requires examination of the entire case record and relevant symptom factors.

Duran · filed 2026-03-18(c)

In doing so, the ALJ “examine[s] the entire case record.”

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to determine work-related limitations using the entire record.

Webster · filed 2026-03-18(c)

In doing so, the ALJ “examine[s] the entire case record.”

Subsection 404.1529(a) requires reported pain to be evaluated with objective medical evidence and all other evidence, with a logical bridge connecting that record to the RFC.

William M. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-03-20(a)

The ALJ was therefore required to consider Plaintiff’s reported pain and determine whether there was “objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows [Plaintiff has] medical impairments which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain…alleged and that, when considered with all of the other evidence…would lead to a conclusion that [Plaintiff is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(a). There must be a “logical bridge” between the medical evidence and the RFC. Minnick, 775 F.3d at 937. ... This case must be remanded, however, because the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s subjective reports of pain by reasoning that the records showed “mostly mild examination findings”, only cited to two mild examination findings (both found in one x-ray report), and omitted any reference or discussion of records that showed moderate to severe conditions.

Section 404.1529 does not require an ALJ to methodically discuss every symptom-evaluation factor when the ALJ acknowledges and examines the factors before discounting subjective allegations.

Martin v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-04-21

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of its listed symptom factors but does not require the decision to discuss and cite every possible factor.

Horton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-05-03(c)(3)

The decision need not contain discussion and citations as to every possible factor to be sufficiently specific.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires discussion of symptom factors pertinent to the record but not factors that are irrelevant, and requires the adjudicator to explain which symptoms are consistent or inconsistent with the evidence.

Shaffer v. Saul · filed 2023-05-30(c)(3)

The ALJ is required to discuss the factors pertinent to the evidence of record, but will not discuss a factor where it is not relevant. ... The ALJ is, however, required to explain which of an individual’s symptoms he or she finds consistent or inconsistent with the evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formal factor-by-factor recitation when the adjudicator identifies the specific evidence used to evaluate the consistency of subjective complaints.

Ratliff v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-05(c)(3)

“[S]o long as the ALJ ‘sets forth the specific evidence [s]he relies on in evaluating the [consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints],’ [s]he need not make a ‘formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.’” Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167, quoting Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368, 1372 (10th Cir. 2000).

Section 404.1529 does not require an ALJ to analyze every symptom and complaint individually when the decision gives specific, evidence-supported reasons and incorporates all impairments into its analyses.

Wiesman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-22

There is no requirement that an ALJ specifically analyze each and every symptom and complaint. ... The ALJ’s analysis complied with the applicable regulations and rulings and governing case law. No more was required.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formal factor-by-factor recitation when the ALJ identifies the specific evidence used to evaluate the consistency of subjective complaints.

Maddux v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-25(c)(3)

As long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence she relies on in evaluating the consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints with other evidence, the ALJ “need not make a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167 (cleaned up).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formal factor-by-factor recitation when the adjudicator identifies the specific evidence used to evaluate the consistency of subjective complaints.

Trunels v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-16(c)(3)

“[S]o long as the ALJ ‘sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the [consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints],’ he need not make a ‘formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.’” ... The Court finds the ALJ’s consistency determination was not “conclusory,” as the ALJ cited factors including Plaintiff's own testimony and reports of his activities, minimal mental health treatment and medication, instances of non-compliance with treatment and taking medication, and normal examination findings, and linked them to substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires symptom findings to be linked to specific supporting evidence but does not require a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation.

Brinkley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-17(c)(3)

However, an ALJ’s findings “should be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence and not just a conclusion in the guise of findings.” ... “[S]o long as the ALJ ‘sets forth the specific evidence [s]he relies on in evaluating the [consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints],’ [s]he need not make a ‘formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.’” ... The Court finds the ALJ conducted an appropriate analysis of Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and cited evidence in support of her consistency determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects under seven regulatory factors and to give specific, clearly articulated reasons for the weight assigned to a claimant's allegations.

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

Even so, the ALJ failed to: (1) evaluate the intensity and persistence of these symptoms; (2) determine the extent to which these symptoms affected Ms. Wagner’s ability to perform work-related activities; (3) consider the seven factors set forth in the regulations and SSR 16-3p in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms; and (4) provide specific reasons, clearly articulated, for the weight given to Plaintiff’s allegations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires meaningful consideration of the full range of applicable symptom factors and an explanation of how those factors were balanced.

Moran · filed 2026-02-20(c)(3)

In short, the record is unclear as to whether the ALJ “meaningfully consider[ed] the full range of § 404.1529(c)(3) factors.” Adesina, 2014 WL 5380938, at *13. Therefore, remand is warranted.

Section 404.1529 requires more than boilerplate: the ALJ must specifically explain why record evidence contradicts the claimant’s testimony about each material symptom and limitation.

Knight · filed 2025-10-28(a)-(c)

However, the ALJ is not specific about why he did not fully credit Plaintiff’s hearing testimony concerning any of his ailments. Instead, the ALJ relies on boilerplate language regarding the treatment and medical records not supporting the limitations described by Plaintiff without explaining why the records contradict his testimony regarding his chronic fatigue and pain from Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; panic attacks, Bi- Polar, ADHD, difficulty concentrating, needing reminders for tasks, struggling with stress, and using a rollator during flare-ups.

Subsections (c) and (d) require explicit, adequate reasons for discounting subjective pain, but the ALJ need not present the symptom analysis in an explicit format when the reasons are clear on review.

Hosmer · filed 2025-11-05(c)-(d)

The ALJ need not conduct an explicit symptom analysis, but the reasons for her findings must be clear enough that they are obvious to a reviewing court.

Absent malingering, an ALJ may reject symptom-severity testimony only by providing specific, clear, and convincing reasons.

Tran v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-26(a)

Second, if the claimant produces that evidence, and “there is no evidence of malingering,” the ALJ must provide “specific, clear and convincing reasons for” rejecting the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of the claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount alleged limitations based on corroborated medical contradictions, unexplained failure to complete recommended treatment, and failure to report the claimed extreme limitations to treating providers.

Whitfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-18(c)

Further, as the ALJ indicated, Plaintiff did not report such extreme limitations as needing to lie or sit down for eight hours a day to any of his providers. Both Plaintiff's “unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment” and his inconsistent statements are valid considerations in determining his credibility. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284.

Section 404.1529(a) requires specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject severity testimony when objective evidence shows an impairment capable of causing the alleged symptoms and there is no malingering evidence.

Tobias M. P. v. Bisignano · filed 2026-01-20(a)

When a disability claimant produces objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged, absent evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide “specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of the claimant’s symptoms.” Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ who rejects a claimant’s symptom testimony to identify the statements rejected and explain why.

Dominguez v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-24

However, if an ALJ discredits a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, the ALJ must articulate specific reasons for doing so. ... The ALJ’s general reference to Plaintiff’s “allegations of being unable to perform any work” falls short of the requirement to specifically identify which of Plaintiff’s statements the ALJ found not credible and why.

When there is no affirmative evidence of malingering, an ALJ must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount a claimant’s symptom testimony.

Bosch · filed 2026-02-18

At the second step, if there is no affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting the claimant’s testimony. Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 488-89 (9th Cir. 2015); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... In short, the ALJ has failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject plaintiff’s symptom testimony. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2005).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to give specific, evidence-supported reasons for discrediting a claimant’s symptom testimony.

Cobb v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-05

The regulations prohibit ALJs from making conelusory findings on credibility, and require their decisions to “contain specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by the evidence in the case record.” SSR 96-7p; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... Here the ALJ failed to cite any reasons for finding Mr. Cobb lacking in credibility which are supported by the evidence of record. Accordingly, her finding must be overturned.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom testimony in light of objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Oropilla v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-25(c)(2)–(3)

If the claimant has done so, the ALJ then evaluates the claimant’s testimony in the context of the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)–(3). ... Accordingly, the supposed inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s symptom testimony and the record do not satisfy the requirement that the ALJ provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony.

An ALJ applying Eighth Circuit Polaski doctrine need not separately analyze § 404.1529’s additional factors for nonmedication treatment and other symptom-relief measures, but still must give sufficient reasons for discounting symptom allegations.

Nichols v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-04-27(c)(3)

However, under Polaski and its progeny, the Eighth Circuit has not yet required the analysis of these additional factors. See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case.

Section 404.1529 incorporates the Eighth Circuit's Polaski factors, but an ALJ who gives good reasons supported by the whole record need not cite Polaski or discuss every factor in depth.

Lerchaichanakul v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-10(c)

The Rule incorporates the familiar factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984) which previously guided an ALJ’s analysis of subjective complaints, including: objective medical evidence, the claimant’s work history, and other evidence relating to (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency and intensity of the symptoms (i.e., pain); (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and (5) any functional restrictions. ... If the ALJ explicitly discredits a claimant’s subjective complaints and gives good reasons, the Eighth Circuit has held it will defer to the ALJ’s judgment, even if the ALJ does not cite to Polaski or discuss every factor in depth.

An ALJ applying Polaski need not methodically discuss every factor if the decision acknowledges and examines them before discounting allegations.

Feikema v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-09-25(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529 embodies the Polaski factors, allowing subjective complaints to be discounted for whole-record inconsistency but not solely from personal observations.

Regalado v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-27(c)

The adjudicator is not free to accept or reject the claimant's subjective complaints solely on the basis of personal observations. Subjective complaints may be discounted if there are inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole. [Emphasis in original.]. 739 F.2d at 1322. The Polaski factors are now embodied in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 incorporates the Polaski symptom factors and requires an ALJ to consider prior work, daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, and functional restrictions.

Tipton v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2024-05-14(c)

In addition to the claimant’s prior work record, the Polaski factors include (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) functional restrictions. Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 incorporates symptom factors concerning activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, and functional restrictions.

Retherford v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2024-08-01(c)(3)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires a full review of relevant non-objective factors and prohibits using objective medical evidence as the sole basis for rejecting symptom testimony.

Benson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-27(c)(2)-(3)

While objective medical evidence is part of the analysis, a fulsome review of the additional factors is necessary to make a clear (in)consistency determination. Indeed, the regulations specifically instruct that objective medical evidence shall not be the sole basis to reject a claimant’s testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)–(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) requires evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and work-related limits using evidence that includes the claimant's history and statements, medical signs and laboratory findings, medical-source opinions, and evidence of effects on daily activities and work.

Wood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-01(c)(1)-(3)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1); 416.929(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including, but not limited to, the claimant’s history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires a subjective-symptom evaluation supported by specific record-based reasons and consideration of daily activities, symptom severity, aggravating factors, medication, and other treatment or relief measures.

Christian v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-05-22(c)(3)

An ALJ must justify her evaluation of a claimant’s subjective symptoms with “specific reasons supported by the record.” Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 367 (7th Cir. 2013). The ALJ must consider all of the record evidence regarding the claimant’s symptoms, including daily activities, the severity of the symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication, and other treatment or measures used to relieve the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7–8 (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires symptom evaluation to consider record evidence, claimant statements, medical and nonmedical source statements, and a nonexclusive factor list including daily activities, medication, other treatment, and other pain-relief measures.

Iven v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-01(c)(3)

In evaluating the complaints of pain and other symptoms, the ALJ considers the record evidence, the claimant’s statements, medical and non-medical source statements, and the non-exhaustive list of factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), including, in part, activities of daily living, medication to alleviate pain or other symptoms, treatment other than medication for pain relief, and measures other than treatment for pain relief.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant's reported functional limitations and response to medication, while permitting inconsistency with supported physical findings to inform the symptom assessment.

Dupre v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-07(c)(3)

Relevant to SSR 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), the ALJ explicitly discussed Ms. Dupre’s hearing testimony and her reported functional limitations related to leg pain and swelling and lack of relief from medication. Tr. 32. The ALJ, however, concluded that Ms. Dupre’s reported allegations were inconsistent with her largely normal physical examinations, which the record supports.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) allow comparison of symptom statements with daily activities and inconsistent evidence when each step is supported by record citations.

Gunnuscio v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-22(c)(3)–(4)

In sum, the ALJ applied the two-step process for evaluating subjective symptoms and supported his findings for each step with reference to evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ assessing subjective symptoms to consider objective evidence, daily activities, symptom severity, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional limitations, and to give specific record-supported reasons.

Quist v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-01(c)

When assessing a claimant’s subjective symptom allegations, an ALJ considers several factors, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, course of treatment, and functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Social Security Ruling 16-3p. An ALJ must justify her evaluation of a claimant’s subjective allegations with “specific reasons supported by the record.”

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to assess symptom intensity and persistence using objective evidence, treatment history and response, relief measures, daily activities, and inconsistencies with the record.

Hutto v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-02-27(c)(1)–(4)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ may consider a variety of factors, including objective medical evidence, treatment history, response to medication and other treatments, sources of pain relief, and the claimant’s daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(1)–(4) permits consideration of objective evidence, treatment history and response, relief measures, and daily activities in evaluating subjective symptoms.

Robinson v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-02-27(c)(1)–(4)

Because the ALJ explicitly discussed the objective medical evidence, Robinson’s treatment history, her response to medication, and her daily activities as he was required to do, the Court finds the ALJ properly evaluated Robinson’s subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(4).

Section 404.1529(c) requires symptom intensity and persistence to be evaluated using objective evidence, source reports, daily activities, medication effectiveness, and other treatment.

RYAN v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-03-14(c)

When evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant's symptoms, including pain, the ALJ considers numerous factors such as the objective medical evidence, reports from medical and non-medical sources, the claimant's daily activities, the effectiveness of medication, and treatments other than medication. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) permit consideration of treatment improvement, daily activities, and inconsistencies when evaluating symptom severity and work effects.

John Esco, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)–(4)

We conclude that the ALJ’s assessment satisfied the substantial evidence standard, and we affirm in this respect.

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of objective medical evidence, daily activities, treatment and side effects, and alternative treatment when findings are affirmatively linked to substantial evidence.

Agnew v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-18(c)

Generally, the ALJ considers the objective medical evidence, daily activities, medical treatments and their side effects, if any, and any alternative treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) permit an ALJ to consider daily activities, treatment, medication, other relief measures, and inconsistencies after the threshold pain showing.

Plier v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-05-20(c)(3)–(4)

Here, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to discredit Plier’s testimony regarding his daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of objective evidence, daily activities, work history, treatment compliance, and source testimony, but rejection requires clear reasons.

Velasquez v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-27(c)

An ALJ also may consider the claimant’s work record and testimony from doctors and third parties regarding the “nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms” of which the claimant complains.

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of activities, medical records, and treatment when evaluating subjective complaints.

Cash v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-02(c)

Thus, the ALJ ... considered Cash’s activities, medical records, and treatment when evaluating her subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to compare symptom statements with objective evidence, treatment, treatment improvement, medical opinions, and daily activities.

Pickett v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-29(c)

In assessing Plaintiff’s statements about his own symptoms and limitations, the ALJ considered those statements and then compared those statements with the objective evidence, Plaintiff’s treatment history, Plaintiff’s improvement with treatment and medication, the reliable opinion evidence, and Plaintiff’s daily activities, among other things. [R. 24-28.] The ALJ was entitled to consider each of these factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating symptom testimony to consider a claimant’s daily activities and the effectiveness of treatment, including improvement with treatment.

Myers v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-10(c)(3)(i), (iv)–(v)

An ALJ may discredit a claimant's testimony when they report participation in everyday activities indicating capacities that are transferable to a work setting. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112-13; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... Here, the ALJ reasonably relied on Myers’ providers’ statements regarding the effectiveness of the treatments and his own statements that he had some improvement with treatment. (AR 28-29.) See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v). ... The Court finds that this ALJ finding is a specific, clear, and convincing reason to discount Myers’ testimony regarding his shoulder limitations due to his improvements following the December 2020 rotator cuff surgery.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (c)(4) require an ALJ to consider the listed symptom factors in relation to the record and evaluate whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.

Ruiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)(i)-(vii), (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). ... Given the ALJ’s failure to consider Ms. Mulso’s notes when evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the matter is due to be remanded for the ALJ to reconsider the evidence and address it in such a way that the Court can be satisfied it was adequately considered.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider objective medical evidence, the claimant’s complaints and work history, evidence from medical and nonmedical sources, daily activities, medication, treatment, and other functional limitations.

Barkhauer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-15(c)(3)

In undertaking this analysis, an ALJ should consider objective medical evidence, a claimant’s subjective complaints, information about a claimant’s prior work record, and information from medical and non-medical sources. SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. 49462, 49464-49466; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms include daily activities, types and effectiveness of medications, treatment received to address symptoms, and other factors concerning a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49465-49466; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Consistent with SSR 16-3p, the ALJ then considered the medical evidence relating to her Ms. Barkhauer’s medically determinable impairments, including objective diagnostic and examination findings, treatments prescribed to treat her conditions, and her response to treatment. (Tr. 19-23.)

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ assessing subjective complaints not substantiated by objective medical evidence to consider seven categories of evidence bearing on the claimant’s pain and limitations.

Perfetto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-13(c)(3)

If the claimant’s allegations of pain and limitation are “not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” Meadors, 370 F. App’x at 184. 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)). ... The ALJ’s errors in assessing the medical opinion evidence, as discussed above, necessarily undermine her consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, which were supported by, and consistent with, the opinions of both consultative examiners. Moreover, Plaintiff has an extensive work history (T at 193-95), which the ALJ should have considered as an important factor tending to support his subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the claimant’s activities and conflicts between the claimant’s statements and statements from treating and non-treating sources.

Hawkins v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-24(c)(3)(i), (c)(4)

After close review, I find the ALJ fairly evaluated Ms. Hawkins’ subjective complaints. ... As the Commissioner persuasively argues: ... Based on all of this evidence, the ALJ reasonably found that Plaintiff’s claims of disabling mental and physical impairments were not supported by the record (Tr. 22-23, 24). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (ALJ must consider a claimant’s activities). ... Additionally, the ALJ considered the state agency doctors’ assessments—none of which indicated that Plaintiff had work-preclusive physical or mental limitations—in finding her claims unsupported (Tr. 23-24; see Tr. 483-86 (mental evaluation by Mary Jane Sontag, Psy.D.), 54-55 (mental findings by Jennifer Williams, Ph.D.), 56-58 (physical findings by Dr. Campo), 73-74, 76-77 (mental findings by Rachel Morrisey, Ph.D.), (512-17 (physical findings and opinion by Nurse Rice), 75-76 (physical findings by Dr. Harrison)). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (ALJ must consider whether there are conflicts between a claimant’s statements and statements by treating and non-treating sources).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to weigh subjective complaints against objective evidence and other evidence such as daily activities, medication effectiveness, and treatment.

Casanova · filed 2026-01-26(c)

As the regulations outline, ALJs consider several factors when evaluating a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms, including objective medical evidence and other evidence including a plaintiff’s daily activities, the type, dosage, and effectiveness of medications, and other forms of treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017). In accordance with her duties, the ALJ weighed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints alongside each other and evaluated them against the record.

Lack of objective medical support cannot alone justify rejecting symptom testimony, but affirmative inconsistency with objective medical evidence may be weighed against the testimony.

(SS) Mazon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-01(c)(2)

Nonetheless, as this Court has maintained, there is a difference between a lack of objective medical evidence, and inconsistency with the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)–(3) allows objective medical evidence to be considered in evaluating subjective symptoms, but the absence of objective support cannot be the sole basis for discounting testimony.

Wagner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-08(c)(1)–(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with the objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. The lack of objective medical evidence may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejection solely for lack of objective corroboration but permits clinical evaluations that affirmatively conflict with claimed severity to support an adverse finding.

(SS) Gill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-18(c)(2)

While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529 bars rejecting symptom testimony merely because objective evidence does not support it, but permits discounting testimony that affirmatively conflicts with objective medical evidence.

Weller v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-28(c)(2), (c)(4)

The ALJ may not, however, “discredit the claimant’s testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective evidence.” Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). Nevertheless, an ALJ may discount a claimant’s testimony where it is inconsistent with the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity, so an ALJ may rely on findings that contradict alleged limitations even though lack of objective corroboration alone is insufficient.

Radford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-11-25(c)(2)

Subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of Claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” ... To begin, as both the Defendant and the ALJ emphasized, despite Plaintiff’s testimony that his left foot was always swollen “like [an] elephant foot,” progress notes often indicated mild or no edema, as the ALJ noted. ... In addition, despite Plaintiff’s testimony that he could stand less than 30 minutes at a time and couldn’t lift and carry a case of water or soda (AR 52, 55), progress notes reflect steady gait and full motor strength.

Section 404.1529(a) permits an ALJ to reject limitations based solely on subjective complaints without objective support.

Gilmore v. Barnhart · filed 2005-02-11(a)

As Judge Rapoport stated, “the ALJ appropriately rejected the portions of Dr. Kohutiak’s assessment that relied only upon Plaintiffs subjective complaints and had no objective basis.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) permits consideration of a claimant's response to treatment, and successful symptom improvement may support discounting subjective testimony.

Durham III v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-01(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

When evaluating a plaintiff's symptom testimony, an ALJ can consider the plaintiff's response to treatment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv){v), and improvement with treatment can be sufficient to discount their testimony.

The type and effectiveness of treatment are relevant to symptom evaluation, and successful treatment may undermine testimony that symptoms are disabling.

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

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).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) makes the type and effectiveness of treatment important indicators of symptom intensity and persistence, and successful treatment may undermine severity testimony.

Mueller v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-24(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

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). ... As noted above, ALJ should consider the type and effectiveness of treatment in weighing the claimant’s allegations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) requires consideration of treatment effectiveness when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence, and documented improvement may support discounting more severe testimony.

Armstrong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-07(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony regarding the intensity or persistence of their symptoms, the ALJ considers the effectiveness of treatment for relieving the claimant’s pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v). ... Therefore, the ALJ reasonably discounted Plaintiff’s testimony concerning the severity and limiting effects of his symptoms based on evidence Plaintiff’s symptoms improved with treatment, and the ALJ’s reasoning was specific, clear, convincing, and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats symptom improvement as important evidence of intensity and persistence, but improvement must be evaluated within the overall diagnostic picture because occasional symptom-free periods can coexist with disability.

Orlando v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-29(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment improvement important to symptom intensity and persistence, but requires improvement to be weighed in the overall diagnostic picture because occasional symptom-free periods can coexist with disability.

Lund v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-11(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) requires consideration of treatment type and effectiveness, and successful symptom relief may undermine more severe allegations.

Luft v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-24(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

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). ... As noted above, an ALJ should consider the type and effectiveness of treatment in weighing the claimant’s allegations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v).

Under § 404.1529(c)(3), symptom improvement with treatment is an important indicator of intensity and persistence and may support discounting allegations of disabling limitations.

Lukcik v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-11(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 ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s fatigue and mental health symptoms improved with treatment, which undermined his hearing testimony. ... This is another clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence to discount Plaintiff’s symptom testimony, and the Court upholds the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s testimony on the basis that his symptoms improved with treatment.

Section 404.1529(c) permits objective evidence that conflicts with symptom testimony and improvement with treatment to support discounting alleged severity.

Rothe v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-30(c)(2)-(3)

The ALJ reasonably discounted Plaintiff’s testimony that pain and nausea would make him totally unable to work because it was inconsistent with the record. Conflict with objective medical evidence is a sufficient basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... This is another clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence, and the Court therefore upholds the decision to discount Plaintiff’s testimony on the basis that his symptoms improved with treatment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits symptom evaluation to account for a claimant’s improvement and responsiveness to treatment, together with the rest of the evidentiary record.

(SS)Stites-Mounts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)(iv)

As the ALJ observed, the record also shows that Plaintiff’s condition had improved. In March 2019, Plaintiff denied chest pain, palpitations, arthralgias, myalgias, dizziness, and headaches. (AR 1047.) She reported “[d]oing well” in July 2020 and taking care of her husband with gastric cancer. (AR 1189.) See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv); see also Warre v. Comm’r, 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006); Morgan, 169 F.3d at 599 (ALJ’s adverse credibility determination properly accounted for physician’s report of improvement); Odle v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 439, 440 (9th Cir. 1983) (affirming denial of benefits and noting that claimant’s impairments were responsive to treatment). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s conclusion that the evidentiary record undermines Plaintiff’s subjective statements and testimony is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Mackey v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (2011); 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).

Although symptom improvement is relevant under § 404.1529(c)(3), it must be weighed within the claimant's overall diagnostic picture.

Berenger v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-30(c)(3)

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

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

Kamphaus v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-03(c)(3)

A claimant's improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture,” particularly for mental-disorder symptoms which often wax and wane.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence.

Dunning v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-31(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).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats symptom improvement as relevant but requires it to be weighed within the overall diagnostic picture.

Rowe v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-30(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment improvement an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence.

(SS) Pulido v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-09(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of ... symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes improvement from treatment relevant to the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Ferguson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-11(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); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting “evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability”). Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ provided a clear and convincing reason to discount plaintiff’s symptom testimony when he concluded that plaintiff’s fibromyalgia symptoms improved with treatment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes improvement with treatment an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Jarrett v. O'Malley · filed 2024-11-07(c)(3)

The ALJ discounted Dr. Rapoport’s opinions because they were inconsistent with her progress notes reflecting normal mental status examinations and improvement with treatment, and a statement in one opinion that Jarrett’s treatment was effective. These are valid reasons to find Dr. Rapoport’s opinions insufficiently supported. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (stating that a claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms”).

Symptom improvement with treatment is an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Cheshire v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-18(c)(3)

The medical records the ALJ cited also show plaintiff’s mental health issues improved with treatment, which was another clear and convincing reason to discount her symptom testimony. 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). For one, the ALJ noted that just before her alleged disability date plaintiff reported that she was “doing well” and that she was “happy most of the time.” Tr. 21, 366. And, just after filing her disability application, plaintiff described her anxiety as improving but she still had some difficulty interacting with others. Tr. 21, 373. Plaintiff even testified that her panic attacks could be mitigated by prescribed medication, that they would last only “until I get a medicine.” Tr. 19, 43. This was all substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff’s mental health symptoms improved with treatment, and his decision to discount her symptom allegations as a result.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as relevant to the intensity and persistence of symptoms, but occasional improvement must be evaluated in the context of the claimant’s overall clinical picture.

Morris-Cole v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-19(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3). ... Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.” ... Given the overall clinical picture of Plaintiff’s severe depression and anxiety, occasional reports of improvement do not constitute substantial evidence to discount Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an important indicator of a symptom’s intensity and persistence, and supported improvement may justify discounting a claimant’s symptom allegations.

Begley v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-30(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). ... This was all substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff’s hand-related symptoms improved with treatment, and the decision to discount her symptom allegations as a result.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to discount symptom testimony when the claimant’s symptoms improve with treatment.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-13(c)(3)

Second, the ALJ discounted plaintiff’s symptom testimony because of the improvement of plaintiff’s symptoms with treatment. Tr. 29–32. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017). The ALJ noted that plaintiff’s pain was effectively managed with medication and surgical treatment. Tr. 30–31 (citing Tr. 1044, 3063, 3420). ... The ALJ cited specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting plaintiff’s allegations of debilitating physical symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Stone v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-10(c)(3)

Additionally, a claimant’s improvement with treatment “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of ... symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Much like the ALJ’s analysis of the medical opinion evidence, the ALJ discussed how Plaintiff’s OCD was well managed. It was therefore reasonable for the ALJ to discount Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony based on his failure to follow treatment for his sleep apnea, and his improvement with conservative treatment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an indicator of symptom intensity and persistence, but improvement during treatment and under limited environmental stressors does not necessarily show that a claimant can function effectively in a workplace.

May v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-19(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3). ... However, the Court finds that such improvement “must also be interpreted with an awareness that improved functioning while being treated and while limiting environmental stressors does not always mean that a claimant can function effectively in a workplace.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1017. Despite Plaintiff’s reported improvements, his aggressive reaction to criticism and physical closeness of another church member, his hypervigilant reaction to his neighbor’s fireworks, his self-medication with alcohol, and his limited ability to be in public spaces for any length of time resulting in increased levels of anxiety, hypervigilance, and isolationism, does not lead this Court to believe that his improvement would lead to effective functioning in the workplace. See Tr. 863, 1013, 1074, 1171, 1195-96, 1215, 1223, 1225, 2413, 2416. ... Given the above, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s mental health impairments improved with treatment is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Ruiz v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-19(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3). ... Given the above, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s impairments related to her weakness improved with treatment is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to evaluate subjective symptom testimony in light of whether conservative treatment effectively improved the claimant’s symptoms.

Seidl v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-10(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3). ... Given the above records, the ALJ reasonably concluded that plaintiff’s treatment was both conservative and effective in treating her syncopal episodes, considering her syncopal episodes decreased dramatically from seven or eight per day to twice a week, and continued further improvement. Plaintiff presented little evidence to support her contention that her improvements were inadequate, and essentially asks this Court for a different reading of the record, but “the Court will uphold the ALJ’s conclusion when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1038. Therefore, the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff improved with treatment is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to treat improvement with treatment as an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Rice v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-28(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). The medical records the ALJ cited showed medication and injection treatment helped Plaintiff's headache symptoms, and this was a clear and convincing reason to discount her symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(vii) permits an ALJ to consider evidence that treatment effectively controlled or improved a claimant’s symptoms when evaluating their severity and functional effects.

Nicholson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-18(c)(3)(vii)

ALJ’s may, consider any other evidence relevant to determine the severity and functionally limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, including evidence that symptoms were effectively controlled or have improved with treatment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(vii); see also Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling.”) (citations omitted).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(vi) permits successful treatment to undermine alleged symptom severity only when improvement makes the symptoms less limiting than claimed.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-02(c)(3)(iv)-(vi)

Evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving mental health symptoms can undermine a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) -(vi); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017). Yet, without finding plaintiff’s condition improved such that her symptoms were no longer as limiting as claimed, this was an insufficient basis to reject her testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Melhus v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-02(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3). ... Plaintiff’s conservative and lack of treatment despite his complaints of severe and disabling pain was a specific, clear and convincing reason to discount his pain testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to treat improvement with treatment as an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, but that improvement must be weighed in the context of the overall diagnostic picture.

Fleming v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-07(c)(3)

The ALJ provided a further clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s symptom testimony because her symptoms improved with treatment. An ALJ may reject a claimant’s symptom testimony if that testimony is contradicted by evidence in the medical record. Carmickle v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008). 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); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting “evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability”). Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001).

Under subsection (c), temporary improvement from treatment does not by itself provide substantial evidence for discounting all reported pain and physical dysfunction when the record lacks sustained improvement.

Cortez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-25(c)

For all of these reasons, any purported effectiveness in Plaintiff’s “course of treatment,” standing alone, does not constitute substantial evidence to discount the entirety of her reported pain and physical dysfunction.

Subsections (b) and (c) permit an ALJ to find migraine symptoms less frequent and limiting than alleged when treatment improvement and daily activities provide substantial evidence for that conclusion.

Lyons v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-29(b)-(c)

This constitutes substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding that Ms. L.’s migraines were not as frequent as alleged.

Under subsection (c)(3), successful treatment is an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence and may support discounting testimony about greater limitations.

Kalonji · filed 2025-10-24(c)(3)

The medical records cited by the ALJ show that surgery and medication helped Plaintiff's back and shoulder symptoms, and this was a clear and convincing reason to discount his symptom testimony about these impairments.

Subsection (c)(3)(iv) permits an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of treatment when evaluating testimony about symptom severity.

Putz v. Bisignano · filed 2025-10-28(c)(3)(iv)

Fourth, the ALJ properly considered the effectiveness of treatment to evaluate Putz’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms.

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

McGlothin · filed 2026-02-17(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); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting “evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability”). Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of treatment that provides only partial relief when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Cotton v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-10(c)(3)

In any event, nothing in the regulations says that only fully effective treatment may be considered in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as evidence about the intensity and persistence of symptoms, assessed in the context of the record as a whole.

Dobbins v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-23(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); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting “evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability”). ... In short, the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff’s migraine and carpal tunnel limitations improved with treatment is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, and this rationale fails to provide a specific, clear, and convincing reason to reject plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount symptom testimony when improvement with treatment undermines the claimed severity of symptoms.

Gordon · filed 2026-02-25

The ALJ did not err in finding that plaintiff’s overall improvement with treatment undermined his symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of how effectively treatment relieves a claimant’s symptoms when evaluating their severity.

Patrick v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-23(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. ... Despite some documented abnormalities, the ALJ reasonably found that Plaintiff’s improvement with treatment is inconsistent with her symptom claims.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an indicator of the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Hamilton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-25(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of... symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an indicator of the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

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

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... Given Plaintiff’s improvement with mental health treatment, the ALJ did not err in rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony on this basis.

When evaluating symptoms, an ALJ considers the effectiveness of medication, other treatment, and measures used to relieve symptoms.

Yanke v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-28(c)(3)(iv)-(vi)

Relevant factors for the ALJ to consider when evaluating symptom testimony include “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” the plaintiff takes to alleviate symptoms, as well as treatment besides medication that relieves symptoms, and other measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(vi). ... The ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s symptoms improved when he consistently took his medication and sought counseling.

Improvement with treatment is relevant to evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Webb v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. ... The ALJ reasonably discounted Plaintiff’s symptom complaints because she improved with treatment, and this was a clear and convincing reason supported by substantial evidence to discount Plaintiff’s symptom reports.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as a factor in assessing the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Young v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-07(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3). ... Given the above, the ALJ’s reasoning regarding Plaintiff’s improvement with treatment was a clear and convincing reason to discount his subjective symptom testimony supported by substantial evidence.

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

Beazley v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-10(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.”... Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Quinnett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-14(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of... symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3). ... A review of the record shows that, while Plaintiff has continued to experience some level of pain, the ALJ’s determination that she improved with treatment was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) calls for consideration of inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements about symptoms and the rest of the evidence.

Cobb v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-30(c)(4)

SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *3 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“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 .... ”). ... The Court finds that the ALJ applied the proper legal standard in assessing plaintiffs impairments, including his complaints of disabling pain, and that the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (c)(4) permit an ALJ to evaluate symptoms exceeding objective support using other information, daily activities, and conflicts between claimant statements and the rest of the evidence.

Crews · filed 2026-04-09(c)(3)–(4)

When the reported pain and other symptoms suggest an impairment of greater severity than can be shown by objective medical evidence, an ALJ may consider other information and factors which may be relevant to the degree of pain and other symptoms alleged (Tr. 530-34). ... Another factor that may be considered is whether there are “any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the plaintiff’s] statements and the rest of the evidence . . .”

Subsection 404.1529(c)(4) requires consideration of inconsistencies in the evidence and conflicts between a claimant's statements and the rest of the record.

Castillo · filed 2026-01-13(c)(4)

The ALJ will then “consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Here, upon review of the ALJ’s very fulsome discussion of the record, it is clear that substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s evaluation. Thus, the Court will not disturb the ALJ’s determination.

Subsections (c) and (c)(4) permit discounting subjective complaints when the claimant’s description of limiting symptoms is inconsistent with record evidence.

Hougas v. Bisignano · filed 2025-10-21(c), (c)(4)

The ALJ identified several inconsistencies in Hougas’s subjective complaints. Hougas offers an interpretation of the record evidence that supports his subjective complaints—but does not undermine the ALJ’s rational alternative interpretation of the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) requires the adjudicator to consider subjective complaints but permits assessing them for consistency with the entire record rather than accepting them as true.

Hoffman v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-05-03(c)(3)-(4)

When assessing Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ was required to consider Plaintiff’s subjective complaints about her mental impairments. However, the ALJ was not required to accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true. Instead, the ALJ was obligated to assess Plaintiff’s RFC based upon the entire record. As part of that assessment, the ALJ had to consider whether Plaintiff’s subjective complaints about her mental impairments were consistent with other record evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) does not require an ALJ to accept subjective complaints without question and permits evaluation of their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects for consistency with the evidence.

JONES v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-06-28(c)(4)

It is important to remember that, while a claimant’s testimony regarding her subjective complaints is certainly relevant, 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, 667 F.3d at 363.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires symptom statements to be evaluated against objective and other evidence, including conflicts with the claimant's history, medical findings, and statements by medical and nonmedical sources.

Sisemore v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-28(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) permits discounting a symptom allegation when it conflicts with the remainder of the record.

Grant v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-03(c)(4)

This evidence is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s hearing testimony that he uses his cane whenever he leaves his home. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ provided a legally sufficient reason to discount Plaintiff’s alleged need for a cane in public.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to discount subjective symptom allegations when they are inconsistent with record evidence.

Shaner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-03(c)(3)

The ALJ reasonably discounted Plaintiff s allegations about the severity of her sleepiness and fatigue as inconsistent with the record. Inconsistency between record evidence and a Plaintiff s testimony is a sufficient basis for discounting subjective symptom allegations. Smartt; 53 F.4th at 498; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404,1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount a claimant’s subjective complaints when they are inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Asher v. Bisignano · filed 2025-05-27

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s subjective complaints when there are inconsistencies in the record as a whole. ... The Court finds that the ALJ adequately assessed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and offered sufficient reasoning for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony.

When an ALJ relies on inconsistency under subsection (c)(4), the ALJ must explain how the cited evidence contradicts the claimant’s symptom testimony.

(SS) Razo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-08(c)(4)

The ALJ failed to explain how the cited findings contradict Plaintiff’s pain testimony.

Subsections (c)(3) and (c)(4) require reassessment of symptom testimony when the ALJ’s stated inconsistency finding rests on a materially inaccurate description of the medical record.

Hines v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)-(4)

The ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Fernandez’s records rested on a factual error. Thus, it was not substantial evidence contradicting Hines’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(ii) requires consideration of the nature and frequency of symptoms and permits the adjudicator to assess how objective evidence detracts from the claimant's allegations.

Brubach v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-09(c)(3)(ii)

This analysis shows that the ALJ considered the nature, frequency of plaintiff’s symptoms and how the objective evidence detracts from her allegations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(ii), 416.929(c)(3)(ii).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits the adjudicator to determine migraine-related absence frequency from the entire record rather than accepting testimony about multiday episodes at face value.

WHITTED v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-09-25(c)(3)

In the present case, as instructed by the regulations, the ALJ considered the entire case recotd and explained the reasons for deviating from Plaintiff's statements regarding the impact of her migraines on her ability to work. ... Here, the ALJ reviewed the medical evidence, Plaintiffs testimony, and the record as a whole, and concluded that Plaintiffs migraines would cause “approximately one unscheduled absence from work per month.” ... The ALJ noted the lack of supporting evidence in the medical record for Plaintiffs claims of disabling migraines, particularly the evidence reflecting that she sought minimal treatment for headaches and generally denied any headaches during almost every medical appointment over the petiod from February 2020 to the date of the hearing in August 2021.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits reliance on social hobbies in evaluating symptoms when the ALJ accurately acknowledges their frequency rather than overstating sporadic activities.

Klein v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)(i)

Mr. Klein’s argument that the ALJ failed to acknowledge the “limited frequency and short duration” of his participation in Dungeons and Dragons (weekly) and live action role play (monthly) is not well taken, since the ALJ acknowledged that Mr. Klein played games with friends every Sunday and attended in-person costume play monthly. (Id.)

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to discuss the frequency, duration, and severity of a claimant’s symptoms and treatment.

Ruppert v. Saul · filed 2022-04-11(c)(3)

An ALJ must discuss the frequency, duration, and severity of the claimant’s symptoms and treatment. ... This Court finds that the ALJ failed to weigh Plaintiff’s time off-task that would be required for Plaintiff’s medical treatment (and visits), which would render her unemployable.

Use of outdated symptom-evaluation boilerplate does not alone require remand if the decision, read as a whole, shows that the ALJ applied § 404.1529’s correct reasonable-consistency standard.

Law v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-10

Even though the ALJ used boilerplate language that included the outdated standard of review for how to analyze subjective complaints of pain in portions of her decision, that alone does not warrant a remand. Together with the improper language, it must be evident, or at least unclear, that the ALJ applied the incorrect standard to the facts of the case.

Section 404.1529 permits standard symptom language if the ALJ connects the record evidence to specific reasons for the conclusion.

Freed v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-29

An ALJ’s use of boilerplate language is not problematic provided the ALJ explains the reasons for his conclusion.

The phrase “not entirely consistent” does not impose an improperly heightened symptom standard when the ALJ substantively explains the inconsistencies between the allegations and the record evidence.

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

The ALJ having provided a thorough explanation for his conclusion that Plaintiff’s allegations are “not entirely consistent” with the objective medical evidence of record, the undersigned finds no error with the ALJ’s use of the “not entirely consistent” boilerplate language.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) permits objective medical evidence that conflicts with subjective symptom testimony to be weighed as undercutting that testimony.

W.S. v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-10(c)(1)-(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. “When objective medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony.”

An ALJ must evaluate conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the record, and symptoms reduce work capacity only to the extent the alleged limitations can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective and other evidence.

McCune v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-26(c)(4)

The ALJ must also consider the existence of any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between a plaintiff’s statements and the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). Accordingly, a claimant’s alleged symptoms are determined to diminish their capacity to work “to extent that [the claimant’s] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).