20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of all symptom statements and evaluation of whether they are reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence.

Joel L. v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-20(c)(3)

The ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s statements about his symptoms, including pain, and determine the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 4790249, at *49462; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

An ALJ must consider symptom testimony and determine how far the complaints can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective and other evidence.

Wilson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-28(a)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), the ALJ was charged with considering Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her subjective symptoms “and the extent to which [those symptoms and complaints could] reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” § 404.1529(a).

An ALJ must consider all symptoms and determine how far they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective and other evidence.

Banks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-05(a)

Section 404.1529(a) instructs ALJs to “consider all [of a claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Under § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3), sustained treatment improvement and generally normal mental-status findings may contradict testimony alleging disabling memory, concentration, anxiety, and fatigue symptoms.

Johnson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-06(c)(2)-(3)

The ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for finding Plaintiff’s subjective testimony inconsistent with the medical record. ... Despite some fluctuation and changes in medications, the record generally indicates Plaintiff’s mood and depression had improved by her DLI after confronting situational stressors. ... Because these records are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony in both her Function Report and her testimony at the hearing that she struggles with memory, ability to focus, anxiety, and extreme fatigue the ALJ did not err in rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(a) requires subjective symptoms to be considered only to the extent reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence, and it does not require adoption of allegations unsupported by the record.

Higgins v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-02(a)

Crucially, however, the ALJ need only consider “symptoms . . . [to] the extent to which [these] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). An ALJ need not adopt allegations that the record does not support.

Under § 404.1529(c)(4), subjective symptoms diminish work capacity only to the extent they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical evidence.

Bookman v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-02(c)(4)

The Commissioner accurately stated the law because the regulations provide that subjective “symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish your capacity for basic work activities to the extent that [they] can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) treats subjective symptoms as diminishing basic work capacity only insofar as they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical evidence.

Arnold II v. Commisioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-02(c)(4)

Here, even if the ALJ went back and discussed each and every one of Arnold’s symptoms, it is inconceivable that a different conclusion would have been reached because the objective medical evidence simply does not support Arnold’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (providing that subjective “symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish your capacity for basic work activities to the extent that [they] can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence” (emphasis added)).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires claimant statements to be evaluated against objective medical evidence and permits inconsistency with that evidence to inform the symptom assessment.

Smith v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-27(c)(4)

Specifically, the ALJ found that objective medical evidence did not support the degree of limitation Claimant alleged. (Tr. 23). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“[W]e will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence.”).

Section 404.1529(a) requires alleged symptoms to be consistent with the objective medical record when determining whether they establish functional limitations.

Murphy v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-07-30(a)

But although these opinions are consistent with each other, Plaintiff's symptoms must also be consistent with the objective medical record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate whether claimed symptom limitations reasonably align with objective medical evidence and other relevant factors.

Rodriques v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-30(a)

In discounting Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ adhered to the regulation mandating consideration of whether Plaintiff’s symptoms align reasonably with objective medical evidence and other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

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

Hilsinger v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-24(a)

Crucially, however, the ALJ need only consider “symptoms . . . [to] the extent to which [these] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence.”

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount subjective symptom complaints that are inconsistent with objective medical findings and the claimant’s daily activities.

WILSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-07-23(c)(4)

Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her hand symptoms is also inconsistent with the broader record. While she described difficulty gripping, dropping objects, and illegible handwriting, (AR 47–48), she also reported that she could prepare simple meals, drive, care for pets, and engage in fine motor leisure activities such as coloring and completing puzzles. (AR 48, 55–57). The ALJ reasonably concluded that her ability to perform these activities undermined and was inconsistent with her allegations of disabling hand limitations. (AR 28). It is well established that an ALJ may discount subjective complaints that are inconsistent with objective medical findings and daily functioning. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); Salles v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 229 F. App’x 140, 146–47 (3d Cir. 2007).

Sections 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) permit an ALJ to find alleged mental symptoms less debilitating when treating-source records repeatedly show intact memory, logical thought, appropriate behavior, and improvement with treatment.

Hampshire v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-22(c)(2), (c)(3)

In short, the ALJ reasonably relied upon such evidence to conclude that Plaintiff’s symptoms were not as debilitating as he alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), (3).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider whether symptom testimony is consistent with the objective medical record.

Bowen v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-21(c)(4)

Here, the ALJ provided two reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to discredit Appellant’s testimony. ... Second, the ALJ found that Appellant’s testimony was inconsistent with the objective medical record.2 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) calls for evaluating symptom statements in relation to objective medical evidence.

Fullenweider-Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-23(c)(4)

Thus, the ALJ reasonably concluded that these objective findings were inconsistent with Plaintiff and his mother’s description of Plaintiff’s symptoms. Tr. 17. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence”).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the agency to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements and the other evidence when evaluating symptoms.

Hofsommer v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-20(c)(4)

The regulations also provide that the SSA "will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [his] statements and the rest of the evidence." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). ... We reject this argument because the ALJ's description accords with Hofsommer's testimony at the hearing before the ALJ.

An ALJ assessing a claimant’s symptoms may consider conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence.

Thorps v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-09(c)(4)

Inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between the claimant’s statements “and the rest of the evidence ” are of course significant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4)(Empha-sis supplied).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the agency to consider conflicts between a claimant’s statements about symptoms and the rest of the evidence.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-19(c)(4)

The ALJ’s decision requires the Court to speculate as to the grounds for the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s testimony conflicts with the medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider conflicts between symptom testimony and objective clinical findings, but the ALJ must identify the testimony and evidence that conflict.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-04(c)(2)

“Inconsistencies between a claimant’s testimony and the claimant’s reported activities [can] provide a valid reason for an adverse credibility determination,” Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2014), and inconsistencies between a claimant’s symptom testimony and objective clinical findings is a factor that an ALJ may consider, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Here, however, the ALJ did not elaborate on which daily activities and medical records conflicted with which part of the Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider whether alleged symptom limitations are consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

(SS) Carreon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-27(c)(4)

As part of the analysis of the record as a whole, an ALJ properly considers whether the objective medical evidence supports or is consistent with a claimant’s pain testimony. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.1529(c)(4) (symptoms are determined to diminish residual functional capacity only to the extent that the alleged functional limitations and restrictions “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence”).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ to consider conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence when evaluating symptoms.

Spivey v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-24(c)(4)

The ALJ must consider whether there are any conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). ... The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for the conclusion that ... Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) allows an ALJ to consider whether objective medical evidence is consistent with a claimant’s reported symptoms.

Vorderstrasse v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-13(c)(1)-(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8.

A claimant’s symptoms are relevant to determining at step two whether an impairment or combination of impairments is severe.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-11(d)(1)

Plaintiff’s symptoms are relevant to whether his impairments are severe, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(1), so these arguments will be addressed in reverse. As discussed below, neither argument has merit.

Section 404.1529(a) makes claimant testimony, treatment notes, imaging, daily-activity reports, opinion evidence, and other record statements or observations relevant to determining impairment severity.

Boehm v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-26(a)

In determining the severity of the impairments, the ALJ considers the claimant’s testimony, treatment notes, imaging, reports of daily activities, opinion evidence, and any other statements or observations in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(d)(1) makes symptoms relevant to impairment severity, but testimony may be discounted when medical evidence, prior symptom statements, and daily activities specifically contradict it.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-14(d)(1)

His symptoms are relevant to whether his impairments are severe, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(1), so these issues will be addressed in reverse. ... The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s testimony was (1) unsupported by, and in some respects inconsistent with, the objective medical evidence, (2) inconsistent with prior statements he had made about his symptoms, and (3) inconsistent with his daily activities. ... These findings are supported by substantial evidence. ... They also constitute clear and convincing reasons. ... The ALJ rationally found that that level of activity contradicted Plaintiff’s testimony about severe walking restrictions.

Under § 404.1529(d)(2), a claimant need not prove a symptom’s intensity, persistence, or limiting effects at step three unless the particular listing expressly requires that information.

Hagerstrom v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-22(d)(2)

SSA regulations make clear that “[i]t is not necessary, unless the listing specifically states otherwise, to provide information about the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of the symptom as long as all other findings required by the specific listing are present.” ... Listing 14.09B contains no criteria related to the persistence or limiting effects of symptoms. ... As such, the ALJ’s reference to an impact on functioning, as well as their observation that Plaintiff’s weight ... loss did not persist, were irrelevant to determining whether Plaintiff exhibited any of the symptoms set forth in Listing 14.09B. ... Because “[a] finding by the ALJ is not binding if it was reached by means of an improper standard or misapplication of the law,” the ALJ’s contravention of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(2) and Listing 14.09B’s requirements necessitates remand.

Section 404.1529(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective symptoms when determining impairment severity.

Herrera · filed 2025-12-17(d)(2)

Also, he is required to consider the claimant's ... subjective symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, in determining severity. SSR 88–13; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(2) (effective ... 11/14/91) (adopting SSR 88–13).

A symptom evaluation may consider the longitudinal medical record, alleged symptoms, daily activities, treatment methods, and treatment effectiveness.

Coleman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-11(c)(3)

The ALJ complied with the regulatory framework and provided a logical explanation that permits meaningful judicial review. Her RFC finding and subjective symptom analysis are supported by substantial evidence and remand is not warranted.

An ALJ may assess subjective complaints against the broader medical record and consider daily activities and treatment rather than accepting the complaints without question.

Hoffman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-12(c)

Indeed, ALJs are tasked with considering factors related to subjective symptoms, including a claimant’s daily activities and treatment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). The ALJ does not have to accept subjective complaints without question and may use their discretion in assessing those complaints and their severity in light of the broader medical record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to weigh symptom allegations against the medical evidence and the other evidence of record.

Northcutt v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-06(c)(3)

Here, the ALJ set out plaintiff’s testimony regarding her daily activities and subjective allegations of her limitations at length and found plaintiff’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her impairments not entirely consistent with the evidence of record. (Tr. 13-15, 16-17, 18). The ALJ acknowledged plaintiff’s reported symptoms and went on to weigh these allegations against the evidence of record as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the entire record, including clinical evidence, daily activities, and medical opinions, rather than accepting them uncritically.

Fernandez v. O'Malley · filed 2025-05-15(c)

During the second step of this credibility assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated based on the ALJ's evaluation of the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p. This includes but is not limited to medical signs and laboratory findings, diagnoses, and other medical opinions provided by treating or examining sources, and other medical sources, as well as information concerning the claimant's symptoms and how they affect his or her ability to work. Id. ... Nor was the ALJ required to uncritically accept Fernandez’s subjective reports regarding the severity of his symptoms when engaging in this Step 3 evaluation. Quite the contrary, the ALJ was obliged to assess those subjective reports in light of the clinical evidence, Fernandez’s activities of daily living, and the medical opinion evidence. In this case, that analysis yielded a conclusion that Fernandez’s complaints were only partially credible and did not satisfy the exacting standards prescribed at Step 3.

Once a claimant produces evidence of an impairment capable of causing the alleged symptoms, the ALJ may not discount testimony about symptom severity merely because objective medical evidence does not support it.

McMurtrey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-18(c)(2)

Once the claimant produces medical evidence of an underlying impairment, an ALJ may not discredit the claimant's testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998).

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical signs or laboratory findings showing a medically determinable impairment before a claimant’s symptoms may be found to affect the ability to perform basic work activities.

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

“[U]nder no circumstances may the existence of an impairment be established on the basis of symptoms alone.” ... See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (“Your symptoms . . . will not be found to affect your ability to do basic work activities unless medical signs or laboratory findings show that a medically determinable impairment(s) is present.”). ... Kuntz failed to meet his burden of establishing the existence of a medically determinable impairment with objective medical evidence for the relevant time period.

A claimant’s symptom statement alone cannot establish disability, and when reported severity exceeds objective support § 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of other relevant information and factors.

Donaldson · filed 2026-01-23(a), (c)(3)

A claimant’s statement that he is experiencing pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that he is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... When, as in this case, the reported ... symptoms suggest an impairment of greater severity than can be shown by objective medical evidence, the ALJ will consider other information and factors which may be relevant to the degree of pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires subjective complaints of pain to be corroborated, at least in part, by objective medical findings.

Alvin R. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appelle · filed 1988-11-16

The Act, regulations and case law mandate that the Secretary require that subjective complaints be corroborated, at least in part, by objective medical findings. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (1985 Supp.); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Owens v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 1276, 1281-82 (5th Cir.1985).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and effects of a claimant’s symptoms without requiring objective medical evidence to corroborate the symptoms themselves.

Branch v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-31

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p. ... On remand, the ALJ must not discredit Plaintiff's testimony as to his subjective experience of pain simply because it cannot be corroborated by objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess how the intensity and persistence of symptoms affect a claimant’s ability to work; objective indicators cannot be used to discount subjective symptoms of depression.

Gould · filed 2026-03-24(c)

Second, if the ALJ finds a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ assesses the plaintiff’s symptoms to determine how the symptoms’ intensity and persistence affect the plaintiff’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). ... The Court finds that the ALJ engaged in the analysis forbidden by Arakas and Shelley C. by discounting Plaintiff’s subjective mental health symptoms from depression based on objective indicators.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms; objective findings cannot be used to discount subjective symptoms of depression.

Shakur · filed 2026-03-31(c)

The Court finds that the ALJ at times engaged in the analysis forbidden by Arakas and Shelley C. by discounting Plaintiff’s subjective mental health symptoms from depression based on objective indicators.

An ALJ need not discuss each symptom factor methodically if the decision acknowledges and examines the factors before discounting subjective allegations.

Ford v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-05-22(c)(3)

The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant’s subjective allegations of pain. See id. 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.

An ALJ may assess symptom severity using objective evidence, treatment effectiveness, and activities, and need not explicitly discuss every regulatory factor.

Ellis v. Saul · filed 2023-06-21(c)(1)–(3)

But an ALJ is not required to discuss every regulatory factor in her decision. See, e.g., Elder, 529 F.3d at 415-16 (affirming decision of ALJ who discussed only two factors); Collins v. Berryhill, 743 F. App’x 21, 25 (7th Cir. 2018) (holding that “the ALJ need not explicitly discuss and weigh each factor”).

An ALJ need not recite every symptom factor so long as the reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

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

However, the ALJ is not required to provide a “slavish recitation of each and every factor” so long as “the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.”

An ALJ need not discuss every symptom factor or piece of evidence but must acknowledge the factors and discuss the evidence supporting the decision.

Hosfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-22(c)(3)

The regulations don’t require the ALJ to discuss each factor or each piece of evidence, but only to acknowledge the factors and discuss the evidence that supports his decision.

Section 404.1529(c) does not require an ALJ to analyze every listed symptom factor, but the decision should show that the ALJ considered the relevant evidence.

Stitzlein · filed 2025-12-10(c)

“The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors, but should show that he considered the relevant evidence.” Hatcher v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-1123, 2019 WL 1382288, at *15 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2019) (citing Cross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 373 F. Supp. 2d 724, 733 (N.D. Ohio 2005)).

Section 404.1529(c) does not require discussion of every symptom factor when the ALJ acknowledges and considers the factors and gives specific, supported reasons for the weight assigned to the claimant’s symptoms.

Ploesser · filed 2026-03-10(c)

The ALJ is not required to discuss each Polaski factor as long as ‘he acknowledges and considers the factors before discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints.’ ... In sum, the Court finds that the ALJ conducted a proper evaluation of Plaintiff's claimed symptoms, considered relevant factors, and gave good reasons for finding those symptoms not entirely consistent with the record.

Section 404.1529(c) does not require explicit discussion of each symptom factor if the decision as a whole shows that the ALJ acknowledged and considered the factors before discounting complaints.

Hiatt · filed 2026-03-10(c)

However, it is well-established that the ALJ need not “need not explicitly discuss each Polaski factor.” ... “It is sufficient if he [or she] acknowledges and considers those factors before discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of pertinent symptom factors but does not require an ALJ to discuss every factor when the decision gives specific, clear, and evidentially supported reasons for its findings.

Francisco · filed 2026-03-23(c)(3)

The regulations only require an ALJ to consider the pertinent factors; they do not require the ALJ to discuss all the factors in his or her opinion. ... The Court finds that these are appropriate reasons to discount Claimant’s statements under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formal factor-by-factor recitation if the ALJ identifies the specific evidence supporting the consistency finding.

Robinson · filed 2026-03-24(c)(3)

If the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence she relies on in evaluating the consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints with other evidence, then the ALJ “need not make a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” ... The Court, therefore, finds no error in the ALJ’s consistency analysis.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of pertinent symptom factors but not exhaustive discussion, and permits discounting allegations based on symptom frequency, treatment effectiveness, daily activities, and precipitating or aggravating factors.

Bray · filed 2026-03-25(c)(3)

The regulations only require an ALJ to consider the pertinent factors; they do not require the ALJ to discuss all the factors in his or her opinion. ... These are appropriate reasons to discount Claimant’s reports under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, which require the ALJ to consider the frequency of a Claimant’s symptoms, the effectiveness of any treatment, a Claimant’s daily activities, and any precipitating or aggravating factors.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider relevant medical and nonmedical symptom evidence but does not require analysis of all seven regulatory factors.

Woods · filed 2026-04-01(c)

The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors but should show that he considered the relevant evidence. ... The Court finds it is able to trace the path of the ALJ’s reasoning regarding the subjective symptom evaluation in the decision.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to consider factors bearing on a claimant’s symptoms, and the ALJ may discuss those factors throughout the decision.

Lesterhuis v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-11(c)

At some point in his decision, although not necessarily directly in the section associated with the credibility findings, the ALJ did discuss these factors.

Section 404.1529 includes nonmedication treatment and other symptom relief measures among the factors for evaluating symptoms, but Polaski did not require the ALJ to analyze those additional factors in this case.

Wheaton v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-11-30

Social Security Regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 require the analysis of two additional factors: (1) “treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms” and (2) “any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.).” 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 requires consideration of relevant symptom factors, but an ALJ need not discuss a factor for which the record contains no evidence.

Tauber v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-31

Although the ALJ did not discuss any non-medication treatments that Claimant received, Claimant points to nothing in the record to indicate that such evidence was before the ALJ. In any event, the failure to discuss this single factor was not fatal. In sum, the ALJ considered the factors set forth in Social Security Ruling 96-7p and 20 CFR § 404.1529 and, as such, the Court finds no error with that portion of the ALJ’s determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate the relevant factors when assessing a claimant’s symptoms.

Dimola v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-24(c)(3)

The ALJ did not evaluate the consistency of Plaintiff’s symptoms and the credibility according to the seven factors mentioned above as required by the regulations and SSR 16-3p.

A cursory assertion that symptom factors were considered does not adequately apply the Polaski framework or justify discounting allegations based on medical records.

Smith v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-06-07(c)(3)

Based upon this review, and in light of this limited assessment, the Court finds the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective allegations without properly considering the Polaski factors and based upon her medical records. See Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322 (holding a claimant’s subjective allegations cannot be discounted “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective allegations]”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the listed symptom factors but does not require the decision to discuss every factor.

Botelho v. Colvin · filed 2015-12-18(c)(3)

While the ALJ is required to consider all of the Avery factors, “an ALJ is not required to discuss every factor in its decision.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require an ALJ to expressly address every symptom factor when the decision allows a court to trace how the ALJ evaluated the claimant’s pain.

Adams v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-03(c)(3)

The ALJ does not explicitly address each of the elements of § 404.1529. ... However, in reading the paragraphs which follow the initial paragraph in the ALJ’s decision addressing credibility, the Magistrate Judge can trace the path of the ALJ’s reasoning and believes the ALJ considered other medical evidence as it relates to complaints of pain. ... This analysis by the ALJ is not “patently wrong” and is, therefore, not subject to reversal by this court.

An ALJ must consider the symptom factors rather than rely only on daily activities and a routine consistency statement when discounting subjective complaints.

McGill v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-05-25(c)(3)

In the present action, the ALJ did not perform a full consideration of the Polaski factors. (Tr 26-29). In his opinion, the only Polaski factor the ALJ considered was Plaintiff’s daily activities.

When the Appeals Council directs consideration of the § 404.1529(c)(3) factors, daily activities alone cannot sustain an adverse symptom finding if the decision omits the other relevant evidence and gives no sufficiently specific rationale.

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

In reading the opinion as a whole, the ALJ again failed to weigh relevant factors as instructed by the Appeals Council, including the claimant’s prior work record, the duration, frequency, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; treatment other than medication; other measures used to relieve symptoms; and other factors related to the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. ... Although the ALJ addressed Mr. Tolaro’s activities of daily living (ADL), the failure to address any other relevant factor means I am unable to assess whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s rejection of Mr. Tolaro’s symptoms. ... The only accurate rationale the AL] cites in support of rejecting Mr. Tolaro’s symptoms is his ADLs, which, especially in light of the Appeals Council’s explicit instructions to provide a more sufficient rationale for rejecting Mr. Tolaro’s account of his symptoms, cannot, on its own, carry the opinion under SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) supports an adverse migraine-symptom finding when the adjudicator evaluates frequency, intensity, triggers, medication, treatment, daily activities, and accommodates supported triggers in the RFC.

Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-14(c)(3)

In sum, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s complaints of migraine headaches. ... In assessing the RFC, she considered Plaintiff’s daily activities, the frequency and intensity of the migraine headaches, aggravating factors, the effectiveness of medication, and treatment. ... The ALJ clearly articulated her reasons for not finding Plaintiff's subjective statements entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence of record, and considered Plaintiff's medical condition as a whole. ... Thus, the ALJ did not err in failing to include further limitations in the RFC assessment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider symptom evidence including conflicts with the record, daily activities, medication effectiveness and side effects, treatment, and other relief measures.

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

He is required to consider “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence,” which includes her history, the signs and laboratory findings, statements from her medical sources or other persons about how her symptoms affect her, her ADLs, the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of her symptoms, factors that precipitate and aggravate her symptoms, the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of her medications, treatment and measures she has pursued for relief of symptoms, and any other evidence as to her functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to consider daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication effects, treatment and other relief measures, and resulting functional restrictions.

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

In addition, when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms, SSR 16-3p guides that the ALJ should also use the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), which include: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. Id.

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

Luchese v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-15(c)(3)

As to Luchese’s argument that the ALJ failed to adequately consider his testimony as to the disabling effects of his symptoms, we find the ALJ properly considered the seven factors which may be relevant to the assessment of the severity or limiting effects of a claimant's impairment based on a claimant's symptoms, including his activities of daily living; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant's symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate his or her symptoms; treatment, other than medication that a claimant has received for relief; any measures the claimant has used to relieve his or her symptoms; and, any other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires careful consideration of all evidence concerning seven symptom factors, including activities and the nature, frequency, and intensity of pain.

Barocsi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-14(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c) requires symptom evaluation to consider daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional restrictions.

Schill v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-09(c)

claimant’s symptoms include: 1) daily activities; 2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; 3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 5) treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 6) any non-treatment measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and 7) any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. Soc. Sec. Rlg. 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider seven symptom factors, including daily activities, as other evidence when objective findings alone do not resolve alleged severity.

Lopez v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-09(c)(3)

SSR 16-3p, effective March 28, 2016, did not change the substance of the regulations governing an ALJ’s evaluation of symptom evidence, 20 C.F.R. ... §§ 404.1529 and 416.929, which state that the ALJ “will consider” seven factors relevant to claimants’ symptoms including “daily activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c) requires full consideration of daily activities and the type and effectiveness of treatment when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence.

Qualls v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-08(c)

The Court has reviewed the record and agrees with the parties that ALJ Hoover did not conduct the proper analysis when considering Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating pain and other symptoms to consider the claimant’s daily activities, symptom characteristics, medications and their effectiveness, other relief methods, and other relevant factors.

Hammad v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-06(c)(3)

Although Plaintiff characterizes this discussion as “fail[ing] to discuss or weigh any of the relevant factors” in the Regulations for evaluating pain and other symptoms, Pl.’s Br. at 7, the undersigned disagrees. In discussing the evidence of record, the ALJ specifically considered Plaintiff’s activities of daily living (albeit in a different section of the Decision), Tr. at 21; the reported location, frequency, and duration of pain and other symptoms, see, e.g., Tr. at 23-24 (discussion of reported migraines and back pain), 25 (discussion of vision, hearing, and migraine impairments and effects); medications prescribed and their effectiveness, Tr. at 24-27; other methods used by Plaintiff for dealing with the pain, Tr. at 24-27; and inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s reporting about his drug use, Tr. at 26. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii); see also Raper, 89 F.4th at 1277. Plaintiff does not challenge any of these detailed findings; they are supported by substantial evidence, reflect adequate consideration of the factors, and need not be disturbed.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to consider the symptom evaluation factors but does not require explicit findings on every factor.

Carter v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-20(c)

The regulation requires only that the ALJ consider these factors, not that she explicitly make ... findings as to each and all of them in her decision, and, thus, the ALJ was not required to undertake the type of mechanical incantation of the evidence on which plaintiff insists.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms, but does not require the decision to discuss every factor.

Bonner v. Colvin · filed 2015-12-17(c)(3)

While the ALJ is required to consider all of the Avery factors, “an ALJ is not required .to discuss every factor in its decision.”

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of medical and nonmedical evidence about how a claimant’s symptoms affect them.

Tano v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-29(c)(1)

“Lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms is competent evidence that the Secretary must take into account.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”). ... The Court agrees. Furthermore, because the lay witness testimony describes limitations already described by the Plaintiff, and the ALJ properly discounted these limitations, any error by the ALJ in failing to discuss the lay testimony is harmless.

An ALJ’s failure to address lay evidence under subsection (c)(3) is harmless when it describes no limitations distinct from the claimant’s testimony and would not alter the result.

Higgins · filed 2025-10-15(c)(3)

In this case, Plaintiff does not identify and the Court does not find any limitations described in the lay testimony that differ from the testimony offered by Plaintiff, or that would have altered the ALJ’s conclusions about the medical evidence of record. As such, any error in relation to the lay testimony was harmless.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes nonmedical-source information about symptoms, treatment, medication, and daily activities important to symptom intensity and persistence, and requires consideration of reasonably consistent symptom-related functional limits reported by those sources.

NORRIS v. SAUL · filed 2023-05-25(c)(3)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, a non-medical source’s information about a claimant’s pain or other symptoms, treatments and medications, and activities of daily living are “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [his or her] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Accordingly, the ALJ must consider “any symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions that [the claimant’s] . . . nonmedical sources report, which can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence . . . .” Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of lay symptom evidence and germane reasons for rejecting it; medication compliance does not refute distinct testimony about social and emotional limitations.

Youmans v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-06(c)(1)

The ALJ erred as to Mr. Dreher’s testimony. Mr. Dreher’s testimony was found only partially consistent because Plaintiff’s medical records show she is “generally compliant with her medications.” Tr. 28. While Plaintiff’s compliance with her medication regimen is reflected in the record, e.g., 504, 509, 517, 539, this is not a sufficient reason to reject the housemate’s testimony regarding Plaintiff’s social limitations, anxiety, depression.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration and explanation of significant lay evidence under the revised regulations.

Schmidt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-15(c)(1)

The ALJ failed to provide any reason for discounting the lay witness evidence. Accordingly, the ALJ erred.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration and explanation of significant nonmedical-source evidence; revised articulation rules do not authorize silent rejection.

Petero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-18(c)(1)

The Court reads the new regulations as not eliminating an ALJ’s obligation to consider and address nonmedical source evidence, including an obligation to articulate germane reasons for disregarding that same evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires nonmedical-source evidence to be considered when evaluating disability, even though the revised medical-opinion rules do not require the same articulation used for medical sources.

Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-03(c)(1)

The Court has directed the ALJ to reassess the medical opinion evidence on remand. As Plaintiff will be able to present new evidence and testimony on remand, and because the ALJ’s reconsideration of the medical evidence may impact the assessment of the lay witness opinion, the ALJ shall also reconsider the testimony from Plaintiff’s spouse on remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of evidence from nonmedical sources despite the revised medical-opinion articulation rules.

Gates v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-21(c)(1)

Relevant regulations indicate that ALJs will consider evidence from nonmedical sources when evaluating a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 404.1545(a)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to consider evidence from nonmedical sources when evaluating disability.

Bradley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-17(c)(1)

Other relevant regulations indicate that ALJs will consider evidence from nonmedical sources when evaluating a claim of disability. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 404.1545(a)(3), 416.929(c)(1), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1529(a) permits statements from nonacceptable medical sources and nonmedical sources to be considered in evaluating symptoms such as pain.

Ali v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-17(a)

The ALJ may also consider statements from “nonacceptable” medical sources and nonmedical sources in evaluating symptoms such as pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of all available symptom evidence from medical and nonmedical sources.

Quinn v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-07-03(c)(1)

Lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms is competent evidence that the Secretary must take into account.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of observations by family, neighbors, friends, and other nonmedical sources.

Hornsby v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-10(c)(1)

Despite this, other relevant regulations indicate ALJs 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.

Section 404.1529 permits nonmedical-source evidence to show symptom severity and effects on ability to work.

Sundeman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-14(a), (c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, evidence from nonmedical sources may show the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and how it affects her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (c).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) indicates that ALJs must consider evidence from nonmedical sources when evaluating disability claims.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-13(c)(1)

Other relevant regulations indicate that ALJs will consider evidence from nonmedical sources when evaluating a claim of disability. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 404.1545(a)(3), 416.929(c)(1), 416.945(a)(3). And, an ALJ may not reject “significant probative evidence” without explanation. Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court does not find the new regulations eliminate an ALJ’s obligation to consider and address nonmedical source evidence, including an obligation to articulate germane reasons for disregarding that same evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires the agency, when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, to consider all available evidence from medical and nonmedical sources about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

Rosa v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-01(c)(1)

“Lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms is competent evidence that the Secretary must take into account.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”). ... The ALJ did not provide a germane reason for rejecting this testimony, and it was error for her to fail to do so.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider descriptions provided by nonmedical sources, including lay witness statements.

Campbell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-30(a)

Yet the 2017 regulations about medical evidence specify they are inapplicable to non-medical source statements — but do not otherwise address how the ALJ discusses reasoning when considering such statements. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(d) (“We are not required to articulate how we considered evidence from nonmedical sources using the requirements . . . in this section.”) (emphasis added). They did not remove the requirement, reflected throughout the regulations, that an ALJ consider lay witness statements. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (“We will also consider descriptions and observations of your limitations from your impairment(s) . . . by you, your family, neighbors, friends, or other persons.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“We will consider any description your . . . nonmedical sources may provide . . . .”); SSR 96-8p (“The RFC assessment must be based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, such as: […] lay evidence[.]”).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms to consider all available evidence, including evidence from nonmedical sources about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

Stevens v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-20(c)(1)

Thus, “[i]n evaluating the intensity and persistence” of symptoms, the ALJ “consider[s] all of the available evidence,” including that from “medical sources and nonmedical sources about how [a claimant’s] symptoms affect [them].” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). ... In sum, the Court finds the ALJ erred by failing to articulate germane reasons specific to Rita S. for rejecting her testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms to consider all available evidence from medical and nonmedical sources about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

Milkovits v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-21(c)(1)

“Lay testimony as to a claimant's symptoms is competent evidence that the Secretary must take into account.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”). The ALJ must articulate his assessment of lay witness statements. Tanya L.L. v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 526 F. Supp. 3d 858, 869 (D. Or. 2021). ... The ALJ failed to give germane reasons for discounting this evidence. The court agrees with the plaintiff that this failure amounts to legal error.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant’s symptom statements are consistent with the record and to consider nonmedical sources’ descriptions of how symptoms affect daily activities.

Schaefer · filed 2025-12-09(a)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), an ALJ is required “to determine if the claimant’s statements about [her] symptoms are consistent with medical and other evidence in the record, and it further requires consideration of nonmedical sources’ descriptions of how the claimant's symptoms affect their ability to perform activities of daily living.” Forjohn v. Kijakazi, 2023 WL 3611531, at *5 (E.D. Pa. May 22, 2023).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to take reports about symptoms from nonmedical sources into account.

Hepler v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-18(c)(3)

By its language, this regulation only requires that reports from nonmedical sources be “taken into account,” and the ALJ did consider the letter in her ultimate RFC determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of evidence from medical and nonmedical sources about how a claimant’s symptoms affect them.

Fadel v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-14(c)(1)

“Lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms is competent evidence that the Secretary must take into account.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”). ... The ALJ considered Shaw’s statement but noted that she reported Plaintiff had cognitive issues in 2017 and issues with asthma in 2019, nevertheless, Plaintiff continued to work full time through February 2020 and then part time through May 2021. ... The Court also concludes on the same basis that the ALJ did not err when he partially rejected Shaw’s statement.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of medical and nonmedical evidence about how symptoms affect a claimant’s capacity for work.

Walden · filed 2026-02-20(c)

Section 1529(c) provides, “In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you . . . [to] determine the extent to which your symptoms limit your capacity for work[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (emphasis added).

Subsections 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) require consideration of other record evidence whenever objective medical evidence does not substantiate statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or functional effects.

McLaughlin · filed 2026-05-27(c)(2)-(3)

And whenever statements about intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, the ALJ must consider other evidence in the record to determine if the claimant’s symptoms limit the ability to do work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3). ... After reviewing the administrative record, the Court agrees with the Commissioner. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of McLaughlin’s testimony and medical records predating his date last insured and the ALJ’s step-two conclusion.

Section 404.1529(c) recognizes that symptoms may be more severe than objective evidence alone shows and therefore requires consideration of specified non-objective evidence when assessing symptom statements.

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

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements.

Section 404.1529 requires careful consideration of other symptom information because symptoms may indicate greater impairment severity than objective medical evidence alone shows.

Gonzalez · filed 2026-01-22(c)(3)

“Because symptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone, we will carefully consider any other information you may submit about your symptoms.”); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4 (“[W]e recognize that some individuals may experience symptoms differently and may be limited by symptoms to a greater or lesser extent than other individuals with the same medical impairments, the same objective medical evidence, and the same non-medical evidence.”).

An ALJ may not reject complaints solely for lack of objective substantiation and must carefully consider other submitted symptom information under § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3).

Williams v. Bisignano · filed 2026-02-02(c)(2)-(3)

However, the ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints only because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the complaints. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). This regulation instructs that the ALJ must “carefully consider any other information [a claimant] may submit about [her] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (c)(4) require consideration of symptom factors and conflicts with other evidence but do not demand discussion of every record item when the decision clearly applies the standard and explains the finding.

Macfarlane · filed 2026-04-13(c)(3)–(4)

Thus, the ALJ applied the correct legal standard and made an explicit credibility finding. She then proceeded to explain why she found as she did. ... Overall, the ALJ’s decision shows that the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms along with all of the other evidence and, ultimately, made “a clearly articulated credibility finding supported by substantial evidence” in discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2) through (c)(4) require consideration of medical evidence, treatment efficacy, daily activities, and inconsistencies, but do not require every detail when the ALJ gives specific record-supported reasons and does not ignore an entire contrary line of evidence.

Allison · filed 2026-03-24(c)(2)–(4)

An ALJ need not discuss every detail in the record as it relates to every factor. ... So the ALJ fulfilled his objection to give “specific reasons supported by the record,” and this Court also does not find that the ALJ was “patently wrong” when he concluded that Tanya’s asserted pain, while supported, was not as intense, persistent, or limiting as Tanya claimed.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (c)(4) require consideration of the specified symptom factors and inconsistencies, but do not require an ALJ to enumerate every factor if the decision gives explicit and adequate reasons for discounting subjective statements.

Pully · filed 2026-03-09(c)(3)–(4)

However, Eleventh Circuit case law does not require an ALJ to enumerate every factor in every decision. ... Here, the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints in light of the evidence of record, and the ALJ sufficiently cited evidence in the record for finding that Plaintiff’s statements were not entirely consistent with the record as a whole.

An ALJ need not match each rejected symptom allegation to the particular evidence undermining it when the decision’s rationale is otherwise clear and supported.

(SS) Blanco v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-02(c)(2)

No controlling authority requires the ALJ to match each allegation being rejected to the evidence that purportedly undermines it.

An ALJ need not discuss every record detail for every symptom factor, but must give specific supported reasons and may not ignore an entire contrary line of evidence.

Roberts v. Saul · filed 2023-06-09

An ALJ ... need not discuss every detail in the record as it relates to every factor. Gedatus v. Saul, 994 F.3d 893, 903 (7th Cir. 2021). Summaries of medical evidence, while definitionally “partial and selective,” are appropriate. Id. at 901. Still, although ALJs do not need to address every piece of evidence in the record, ALJs may not ignore an entire line of evidence contrary to their ruling.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to identify the evidence weighted against symptom testimony and give sufficiently specific reasons; summarizing treatment notes and invoking inconsistency with the record as a whole is not enough.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-21(c)(3)

Ultimately, the ALJ did not specify the reason for which he accorded seemingly no weight to Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. See Alcantara, 667 F. Supp. 2d at 278 (remanding “for the ALJ to provide more detailed reasons for her credibility determination, taking into consideration the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3)” because the ALJ “summarized her credibility finding in a single statement, indicating that [Plaintiff’s] allegations . . . are not totally credible for the reasons set forth in the body of the decision” without detailing “the basis for her credibility assessment”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Sections 404.1529(a) and (d)(4) require symptom findings to be specifically explained and linked to substantial evidence, while reviewing courts defer to adequately supported determinations.

Harl v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-23(a), (d)(4)

The ALJ thus linked his consistency findings to the evidence and provided clear and specific reasons for his determination in compliance with the directives of Cowan and SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to identify the symptom claims being discounted and clearly explain the rationale with supporting evidence.

Parish v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-08(c)(2)–(3)

The ALJ must identify what symptom claims are being discounted and clearly and convincingly explain the rationale for discounting the symptoms with supporting citation to evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to identify the symptom claims discounted and provide a rationale clear enough to convince a reviewing court.

Seely v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-21(c)

The ALJ must identify what symptom claims are being discounted and clearly and convincingly explain the rationale for discounting the symptoms with supporting citation to evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) permits partial rejection of subjective reports when the ALJ gives specific reasons supported by the overall record.

Chagolla v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-21(c)

In short, the ALJ provided specific reasons supported by the record for finding Plaintiff’s subjective reports not entirely consistent with the overall record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)'s symptom evaluation requires the ALJ to identify the testimony being discounted and the supporting evidence; a broad, citation-free conclusion about daily activities is inadequate.

Hester v. OMalley · filed 2024-09-10(c)

Here, the ALJ failed to engage with Plaintiff’s testimony and symptom allegations in any meaningful way. Instead, the ALJ’s decision forces the Court to guess which aspects of Plaintiff’s testimony he found to be not credible or inconsistent with the record evidence. ... The ALJ’s broad and citation-free conclusion that Plaintiff is “able to perform extensive activities of daily living, except for possible fatigue from vomiting,” AR 24, provides no such clarity.

Section 404.1529 requires an explanation sufficient for meaningful review, but does not require an ALJ to identify separately every claimant statement accepted or rejected when the decision adequately discusses the symptom issues.

Hatfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-19(c)

Here, the ALJ’s assessment of the Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms and RFC assessment more than satisfied that minimal articulation standard. Moreover, the ALJ is not required to specify which of the claimant’s statements she accepted and which she did not. See Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F3d 306, 312 (7th Cir. 2012) (finding that the ALJ need not specify which of the claimant’s statements were not sufficiently supported by the substantial record evidence (citing Jens v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d 209, 213–14 (7th Cir. 2003))); Sawyer v. Colvin, 512 F. App’x 603, 608 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Credibility assessments need not be explicit, or particularized to specific testimony.” (cleaned up)).

An ALJ may weigh objective medical evidence that conflicts with symptom testimony as undercutting the testimony.

Reich v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-05(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 may discount symptom testimony when it conflicts with normal mental-status findings and the decision’s full explanation permits meaningful review.

Lejon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-11(c)(4)

Indeed, “[w]hen objective medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits discounting symptom testimony when objective medical findings affirmatively conflict with it.

Cole v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-08(c)(2)

Concerning Plaintiff’s testimony about her anxiety and depression, the ALJ reasonably discounted these allegations as 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).

The Tenth Circuit’s three-step Luna framework remains the proper standard under § 404.1529 even though current terminology no longer calls symptom evaluation a credibility determination.

Hall v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-06-13(c)(3)

Although that term is no longer used, the applicable regulation never used that term and the procedure for evaluating a claimant’s allegations of symptoms has not significantly changed. Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5,844-01, 5,871 (Jan. 18, 2017) (codified at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529). Moreover, the Tenth Circuit held its approach to credibility determination was consistent with the approach set forth in Soc. Sec. Ruling (SSR) 16-3p. Brownrigg v. Berryhill, 688 Fed. App’x. 542, 546 (10th Cir. 2017). Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna, based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2017) is still the proper standard to be used as explained in the regulations in effect on September 28, 2021, when this case was decided.

The Tenth Circuit’s Luna inquiry requires a pain-producing impairment, a loose nexus to the alleged pain, and evaluation of all objective and subjective evidence to determine whether pain is disabling.

Wefer v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-16(a)–(c)

In evaluating such statements, an ALJ must consider: “(1) whether the claimant established a pain-producing impairment by objective medical evidence; (2) if so, whether the impairment is reasonably expected to produce some pain of the sort alleged (what we term a ‘loose nexus’); and (3) if so, whether considering all the evidence, both objective and subjective, the claimant’s pain was in fact disabling.”

Section 404.1529 retains the Tenth Circuit’s three-step Luna framework after SSR 16-3p, but character-based credibility measures are no longer a valid symptom factor.

Stilson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-12-20(c)(3)

Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna, based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2017) is still the proper standard to be used as explained in the regulations in effect on March 16, 2022, when this case was decided. Nonetheless, to the extent, and only to the extent, that “subjective measures of credibility that are peculiarly within the judgment of the ALJ;” Kepler, 68 F.3d at 391; relate to an examination of a claimant’s character, it is specifically prohibited by SSR 16-3p, and is no longer a valid factor to be considered.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii) implements the Tenth Circuit pain framework through seven factors addressing activities, pain characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and limitations.

Craig v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)(i)–(vii)

To evaluate the credibility of a claimant’s description of pain, an ALJ can consider 1) “daily activities,” 2) “location, duration, frequency and intensity” of pain, 3) “precipitating and aggravating factors,” 4) medication, including effectiveness, dosage, and side effects, 5) other treatment for pain relief, 6) other measures used to relieve pain, and 7) functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529 retains the Tenth Circuit Luna framework, under which listed symptom factors and the entire record guide the consistency analysis.

LaVanier v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-04-19(c)(3)

Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna, based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2017) is still the proper standard to be used.

Section 404.1529 retains the Tenth Circuit Luna framework and its nonexclusive symptom factors after SSR 16-3p.

Colvin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-08-07(c)(3)

Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna, based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2017) is still the proper standard to be used.

The Luna three-step symptom framework remains consistent with § 404.1529, but an ALJ may not use credibility measures that amount to examining the claimant’s character.

Mendez · filed 2026-02-04(c)

Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna, based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2017) is still the proper standard to be used as explained in the regulations in effect on July 18, 2024, when this case was decided. Nonetheless, to the extent, and only to the extent, that “subjective measures of credibility that are peculiarly within the judgment of the ALJ;” Kepler, 68 F.3d at 391; relate to an examination of a claimant’s character, it is specifically prohibited by SSR 16-3p and is no longer a valid factor to be considered.

Objective evidence and daily activities are relevant symptom factors, but objective evidence alone cannot support rejection; the ALJ must also identify additional factors.

Ocampo v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-22(c)(2)–(3)

Objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Id. Here, the ALJ considered additional factors in rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Objective medical evidence may be considered but cannot alone justify rejecting symptom testimony; treatment, medication, and daily activities are permissible additional factors.

Nielsen v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-27(c)(2)–(3)

While objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects, an ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). Here, the ALJ considered additional factors in rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) prohibits rejection of symptom statements solely for lack of objective substantiation while requiring consideration of objective evidence, daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and other relief measures.

Roberts v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-14(c)(2)–(3)

An ALJ should not reject a claimant’s statements about “the intensity and persistence of [their] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [their] symptoms have on [their] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [their] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Nevertheless, an ALJ should consider the objective medical evidence, as well as other evidence such as (1) the claimant’s daily activities, (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of a claimant’s pain or other symptoms, (3) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication claimant takes or has taken to alleviate their pain or other symptoms, (4) treatment they received or have received for pain relief, (5) and any measures they have used to relieve their pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)–(3).

Section 404.1529(c) prohibits rejection of subjective statements solely for lack of objective substantiation but permits consideration of medical-source limitations, treatment response, activities, inconsistencies, and conflicts with the rest of the evidence.

Wilkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-14(c)(2)–(4)

And although an ALJ will not reject a person’s subjective statements “solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate his statements,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), the ALJ did not rely “solely” on objective medical evidence, but instead also took into account “symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions that [his] medical sources . . . report[ed].” Id. § 404.1529(c)(3). Moreover, the ALJ properly “considered [Plaintiff’s] statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” as well as inconsistencies in the evidence and “conflicts between [his] statements and the rest of the evidence.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Sections 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) permit inconsistent medical evidence, treatment improvement, and minimal treatment to support rejection of disabling allegations.

Meisner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-03(c)(2)–(3)

Inconsistent medical evidence, evidence of improvement with treatment, and evidence of minimal treatment are all valid reasons to reject a claimant’s allegation of disabling limitations.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all available evidence and bars disregarding subjective complaints merely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Gerndt · filed 2025-12-18(a), (c)(3)

To evaluate the limiting effects of subjective symptoms, ALJs consider all available evidence, including the plaintiff’s history, laboratory findings, statements by the plaintiff, and medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). Although a plaintiff’s description of her symptoms will “not alone establish that [she] is disabled,” id., the ALJ may not disregard the plaintiff’s subjective complaints because they lack substantiating objective evidence, SSR 16-3p. Without objective evidence, ALJs are to consider a plaintiff’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, and side effects of medication to alleviate symptoms; and any other treatment or measures used to relieve pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of treatment effectiveness, medication side effects, and other pain-relief measures when symptoms may be more severe than objective evidence alone shows.

Soto v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-24(c)(3)

Recognizing that “symptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone,” the agency explains that when considering Plaintiff’s symptoms, it will consider, among other things, effectiveness and side effects of medications and other treatment or measures that are used to relieve pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of treatment and other relief measures when assessing the severity of alleged symptoms.

Whitsell v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-30(c)

It is proper for an ALJ to consider treatment and other measures when assessing Eric’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) require consideration of treatment frequency, medication, activities, and inconsistencies when symptoms suggest greater severity than objective evidence alone.

Rutherford v. SSA · filed 2024-05-20(c)(3)–(4)

When the reported pain and other symptoms suggest an impairment or impairments of greater severity than can be shown by objective medical evidence, the ALJ should consider other information and factors such as daily activities, frequency of treatment, inconsistencies in the evidence, and medication prescribed which may be relevant to the degree of pain alleged.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to treat a long period without pain medication and gaps in examination or treatment as inconsistent with allegations that pain was disabling throughout that period.

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

Not needing medication to control pain over that period is inconsistent with a claim of disability beginning in 2015 based in part on that pain. Similarly, the ALJ discussed Ms. Thornton’s “[t]reatment, other than medication,” see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v), by noting the gaps in her treatment history. As the Sixth Circuit observed, “In the ordinary course, when a claimant alleges pain so severe as to be disabling, there is a reasonable expectation that the claimant will seek examination or treatment. A failure to do so may cast doubt on a claimant’s assertions of disabling pain.” Strong v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 88 F.App’x 841, 846 (6th Cir. 2004).

Section 404.1529 requires ALJs to consider the course of treatment when evaluating a claimant’s reported symptoms and limitations.

Tapia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-06

Similarly, the ALJ described the Plaintiff’s treatment as “conservative, consisting of pain management and physical therapy” without acknowledging the nature of the pain management or that it did not resolve the Plaintiff’s pain. See id. at 31; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (instructing ALJs to consider the course of treatment in evaluating the claimant’s allegations as to symptoms and limitations).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes a claimant’s course of treatment, including improvement with treatment, relevant to evaluating reported symptoms.

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

The ALJ’s analysis fails to convincingly explain, with evidentiary support, how Plaintiff’s course of treatment was inconsistent with her reported symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes medical evidence relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects, but does not permit cherry-picking isolated denials of symptoms while ignoring longitudinal reports of chronic symptoms.

(SS) Stewart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-23(c)(2)

The medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not “cherry-pick” aspects of the medical record and focus only on those aspects that fail to support a finding of disability. ... Thus, to the extent the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s right eye symptoms and headaches solely because they were not consistent with the medical evidence, this was not a clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the adjudicator to consider all available medical evidence when evaluating symptom statements.

Lovett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-07-26(c)

Further, the ALJ considered all available medical evidence by factoring every medical record into the decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

An ALJ may consider objective inconsistency but must evaluate mental-health testimony against the record as a whole rather than cherry-pick isolated improvements from symptoms that wax and wane.

Hayes v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-29(c)(1)–(3)

This was not a legally sufficient rationale to reject Plaintiff’s reports of his mental health symptoms and limitations. The ALJ must consider Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony in light of the record as a whole, and may not cherry-pick isolated instances of improvement from the record.

Waxing and waning symptoms and only temporary treatment improvement do not provide a clear and convincing basis to reject symptom testimony.

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

In sum, when viewed in the context of the entire record, the ALJ improperly cherry-picked cycles of improvement as a reason to reject Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony about urticaria. This was therefore not a clear and convincing reason for the ALJ to discount Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires careful examination of both medical and nonmedical evidence when evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and work-related limits.

Elmer v. Saul · filed 2023-06-30(c)(3)

The ALJ is obligated to carefully examine both medical and non-medical evidence in deciding. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p, at *4–5. This includes an evaluation of the plaintiff’s subjective symptoms.

After identifying an impairment capable of causing symptoms, an ALJ must evaluate intensity and persistence using medical and nonmedical evidence.

Zambrano v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-27(b)–(c)(3)

In making the step two assessment, the agency “consider[s] all of the available evidence from [the individual’s] medical sources and nonmedical sources about how [his or her] symptoms affect [him or her],” including medical opinions, objective medical evidence, and “any other information [the individual] may submit about [his or her] symptoms.” Id. at § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3).

Once a medically determinable impairment is established, § 404.1529(c) requires evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence using medical and nonmedical evidence to determine work capacity.

Millard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-27(c)(1)-(3)

Once a plaintiff establishes a medically determinable impairment the ALJ “must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the plaintiff’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [the plaintiff’s] symptoms limit [their] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1), § 416.929(c)(1). The ALJ will consider medical and nonmedical evidence. Id. at § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3), §416.929(c)(2)-(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of all medical and nonmedical evidence describing how symptoms affect the claimant.

Olsen v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-28(c)(1)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider functional limitations and restrictions reported by medical and nonmedical sources when evaluating subjective complaints.

Oldja v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-06(c)(2)–(3)

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s subjective complaints where they are not supported by the claimant’s doctors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (the ALJ will consider “any symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions that your medical sources or nonmedical sources report”).

Subsection 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of all available medical and nonmedical evidence when assessing symptom intensity and persistence.

Ice · filed 2026-05-22(c)(1)

If this first step is satisfied, and the ALJ finds no evidence of malingering, the ALJ then must determine the intensity and persistence of symptoms by considering “all of the available evidence from . . . medical sources and nonmedical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1); 416.929(c)(1). ... In sum, the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in partially rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

An ALJ need not discuss every detail for every symptom factor but may not ignore an entire contrary line of evidence.

Hubbert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-14(c)(2)–(4)

An ALJ need not discuss every detail in the record as it relates to every factor. Grotts, 27 F.4th at 1278. “Summaries of medical evidence, while definitionally ‘partial and selective,’ are appropriate.” Id. However, while ALJs do not need to address every piece of evidence in the record, an ALJ may not ignore an entire line of evidence contrary to its ruling.

Subsection 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them, but permits discounting testimony that is affirmatively contradicted by objective medical evidence.

Ellsworth · filed 2026-03-18(c)(2)

Once a claimant has shown that she has a medically determinable impairment or impairments that could reasonably be expected to produce her pain or other symptoms, her statements about the intensity, persistence, and effect of her pain or other symptoms cannot be rejected “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); see also Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991) (an ALJ “may not discredit a claimant’s testimony of pain and deny disability benefits solely because the degree of pain alleged by the claimant is not supported by objective medical evidence”). However, an ALJ can rely on “contradictions between a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony and the objective medical evidence in the record to discount the symptom testimony.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 498 n.1 (9th Cir. 2022). That is what the ALJ did here.

Subsection 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence, but symptom testimony may be discounted for contradiction—not merely a generalized lack of affirmative support—and the ALJ must identify the testimony and supporting reasons.

Matthew J. v. Commissioner · filed 2026-03-05(c)(2)

The ALJ may consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... The ALJ’s decision in this case exemplifies a summary of medical evidence that does not constitute substantial evidence to discount Plaintiff’s subjective testimony. ... Moreover, the ALJ deploys the incorrect standard to discount Plaintiff’s testimony based on a generalized lack of support, rather than inconsistency.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not corroborate it, but testimony affirmatively contradicted by medical records may be rejected on that basis.

(SS) Keener v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-10(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence.” ... Indeed, Ninth Circuit caselaw has distinguished testimony that is “uncorroborated” by the medical evidence from testimony that is “contradicted” by the medical records, deeming the latter sufficient on its own to meet the clear and convincing standard.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an additional reason when objective medical evidence merely fails to substantiate symptom testimony, while medical evidence remains relevant and affirmative contradiction may itself justify discounting testimony.

(SS) Sepulveda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-21(c)(2)

Rather, where a claimant’s symptom testimony is not fully substantiated by the objective medical record, the ALJ must provide an additional reason for discounting the testimony. ... Indeed, Ninth Circuit caselaw has distinguished testimony that is “uncorroborated” by the medical evidence from testimony that is “contradicted” by the medical records, deeming the latter sufficient on its own to meet the clear and convincing standard.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an additional reason when objective evidence merely fails to substantiate symptom testimony, while affirmative contradiction by medical evidence may suffice.

(SS) Pineda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-18(c)(2)

Rather, where a claimant’s symptom testimony is not fully substantiated by the objective medical record, the ALJ must provide an additional reason for discounting the testimony. ... Furthermore, Ninth Circuit caselaw has distinguished testimony that is “uncorroborated” by the medical evidence from testimony that is “contradicted” by the medical records, deeming the latter sufficient on its own to meet the clear and convincing standard.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) require evidence cited against symptom testimony to actually contradict it; isolated improvement and normal findings from unrelated visits do not suffice.

Andrews v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-22(c)(2)-(3)

But these isolated instances of reduced pain or “normal” back and neck notations both fail to directly undermine Plaintiff’s testimony about an inability to lift up to 20 pounds and fail to accurately state the record of Plaintiff’s back and neck conditions. ... The ALJ erred by cherry-picking scattered moments of improvement from a record that otherwise supports Plaintiff’s testimony about her significant back and neck pain and inability to lift. ... Ultimately, absence of evidence of Plaintiff’s back pain at these unrelated ER visits do not contradict her testimony or provide adequate grounds to discount her testimony about the severity of those symptoms. ... For these reasons, the ALJ did not provide clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to discount Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony about her back or wrist pain on the basis that it was inconsistent with the record or that she enjoyed improvement with treatment.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) distinguish mere lack of corroboration from objective evidence that affirmatively contradicts alleged functional limits; the latter may support an adverse symptom finding.

Watts v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-28(c)(2)-(3)

Unlike in Snyder, 330 F. App'x 843, to which Watts compares this case, the ALJ here did not reject Watts’s subjective testimony based solely on a lack of substantiating medical evidence, but rather relied on objective medical evidence that affirmatively undermined her testimony of greater visual limitations. ... Watts points to no other evidence in the record bolstering the more extreme vision limitations she claimed in her subjective testimony and reports.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount a discrete part of symptom testimony when objective medical evidence conflicts with it, although a mere absence of corroboration cannot by itself support rejection.

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

The absence of corroborating objective medical evidence is not enough, on its own, however, to reject a claimant’s symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5; Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). The ALJ reasonably relied on conflicting medical records to discount certain discrete portions of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony about the extent of hallucinations and mood-related symptoms from his anxiety and PTSD.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) distinguishes a lack of objective corroboration, which cannot alone support rejection, from affirmative contradiction by medical evidence, which may be sufficient.

(SS) Mortera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-22(c)(2)

Furthermore, Ninth Circuit caselaw has distinguished testimony that is “uncorroborated” by the medical evidence from testimony that is “contradicted” by the medical records, deeming the latter sufficient on its own to meet the clear and convincing standard.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) distinguishes affirmative conflict from a lack of corroboration; once the underlying impairment is shown, objective silence alone cannot defeat detailed symptom testimony.

Zarghami v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-13(c)(2)

Conflict with objective medical evidence is a sufficient basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony, but absence of corroborating medical evidence is not. Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).