20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Subsection 404.1529(c)(3) does not require discussion of all seven factors when the ALJ addresses the applicable ones with enough specificity for a court to trace the reasoning.

Thomas · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)

The ALJ’s RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence and was compliant with SSR 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). (Doc. 19 at 1675-78.) The ALJ considered “several of the seven factors outlined in SSR 16-3p” when evaluating Thomas’s hearing testimony. (Id. at 1678.) ... While the ALJ need not discuss all seven factors, the analysis “should be specific enough to permit the court to trace the path of the ALJ’s reasoning.” Cross, 373 F. Supp. 2d at 733.

Subsections 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii) identify symptom-evaluation factors, but an ALJ need not analyze every factor if the decision shows consideration of the relevant evidence.

Clutter · filed 2026-03-20(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

In addition, SSR 16–3p5 sets forth factors that an ALJ will consider: 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 8) any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 2017 WL 5180304 at *7–8; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii). Although an ALJ is not required to analyze all these factors the ALJ should show that he or she considered the relevant evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to discuss symptom factors pertinent to the record, including symptom characteristics, daily activities, aggravating factors, and relief measures.

Romero · filed 2026-02-17(c)(3)

The ALJ failed to adequately discuss Plaintiff’s reported symptoms using the regulatory factors for considering Plaintiff’s reported symptoms, despite the requirement to do so. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8 (the ALJ “will discuss the factors pertinent to the evidence of record”) (emphasis added).

Subsection 404.1529(c)(3) does not require an ALJ to mention or analyze every listed factor; the decision need only show consideration of the factors germane to the alleged symptoms.

Barga · filed 2026-03-02(c)(3)

However, as aptly explained in the Report, “[w]hile Plaintiff is correct that [ALJ Schwalbach] does not specifically mention the SSR 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) factors, a review of his decision demonstrates that he did consider the factors that were relevant to Plaintiff’s case.” (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 885.) The Court here agrees with Magistrate Judge Silvain. “The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors, only those germane to the alleged symptoms.” Thornton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:25-CV-00712, 2025 WL 4088083, at *10 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 25, 2025), R. & R. adopted, 2026 WL 228726 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 2026).

Section 404.1529 incorporates the factors governing evaluation of subjective pain complaints, but an ALJ need not cite the source case or explicitly discuss every factor if the decision shows consideration of the relevant evidence.

Guthrie v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-27

An ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor. ... In this case, the ALJ cited 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, and SSR 16-3p in evaluating Guthrie’s subjective complaints of pain. (Tr. at 23). The Polaski factors are incorporated into these regulations. As such, the ALJ did not err in failing to cite Polaski specifically. ... The fact that the ALJ did not explicitly discuss Guthrie’s full work history in detail is not fatal to the analysis where the ALJ acknowledged and considered appropriate factors before discounting Guthrie’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits a consistency analysis based on treatment efforts, medical contact, combined psychological and physical problems, daily activities, and medication effects without a formal factor-by-factor recitation.

Riley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-18(c)(3)

Factors the ALJ should consider in determining whether a claimant’s pain is in fact disabling include the claimant’s attempts to find relief and willingness to try any treatment prescribed; a claimant’s regular contact with a doctor; the possibility that psychological disorders combine with physical problems; the claimant’s daily activities; and the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication. ... In sum, the ALJ’s discussion of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and the objective evidence satisfies 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and SSR 16-3.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)'s symptom factors must be considered in light of the claimant's subjective allegations, but an ALJ need not methodically discuss every factor if the decision acknowledges and examines them before discounting those allegations.

Eldridge v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-10-11(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.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom inquiry and consideration of seven symptom factors, but it does not require an ALJ to analyze all seven factors individually.

Mason v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-08(c)(1), (c)(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s alleged symptoms, the ALJ considers factors including: (i) daily activities; (ii) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or symptoms; (iii) precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; (v) treatment, other than medication, to relieve pain; (vi) any measures used to relieve pain; and (vii) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). However, an “ALJ need not analyze all seven factors.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom statements against the relevant record and regulatory factors, but the decision need not discuss and cite every possible factor.

Sedgwick v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-11-16(c)(3)

The decision need not contain discussion and citations as to every possible factor to be sufficiently specific. See Thacker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 99 F. App’x 661, 664 (6th Cir. 2004).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of relevant symptom factors but not analysis of all seven factors, and permits reliance on treatment history, pain characteristics, daily activities, and objective inconsistencies.

Ross v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-21(c)(3)

In performing this assessment, the ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors but must still show that he considered the relevant evidence. Kimberly C. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:22-CV-637, 2023 WL 6807955, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 16, 2023) (citing Roach v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-CV-01853, 2021 WL 4553128, at *10–11 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 5, 2021)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to use the symptom factors germane to the claimant's allegations, but it does not require analysis of all seven factors.

Wiseman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-08(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors, only those germane to the alleged symptoms. See, e.g., Cross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 373 F. Supp. 2d 724, 733 (N.D. Ohio 2005) (“The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors identified in the regulation but should provide enough assessment to assure a reviewing court that he or she considered all relevant evidence.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of relevant symptom evidence but does not require an ALJ to analyze all seven enumerated factors individually.

McCurdy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-08(c)(3)

In performing this ... assessment, the ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors but must show that she considered the relevant evidence. Roach v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-cv-01853-JDG, 2021 WL 4553128, at *10–11 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 5, 2021).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require discussion of every factor, including work history, when the decision adequately explains why other evidence undermines the complaints.

LEWIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-01-19(c)(3)

As previously noted, the ALJ was not required to discuss every piece of evidence and every regulatory factor. See Lewis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. CV 15-1587, 2016 WL 4718215, at *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2016) (“The fact that the ALJ did not discuss all of the § 404.1529 factors does not warrant remand, given that his credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven symptom factors but not explicit enumeration of each when the decision’s rationale can be discerned from a thorough discussion.

Tabb v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-22(c)(3)

Even accepting Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ did not explicitly enumerate and examine each of the aforementioned factors, “[t]he ALJ need not . . . reference each of the seven factors or every particular piece of evidence in order to explain why he found a claimant’s complaint of pain not credible.” Duane N. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2023 WL 2365991, at *5 (D. Conn. 2023) (citing Mongeur, 722 F.2d at 1040).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider multiple symptom factors but does not require a factor-by-factor written discussion if the decision identifies the specific evidence relied upon.

Wheeler v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-07(c)(3)–(4)

Agency regulations lay out multiple factors that an ALJ must consider when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. However, there is a “difference between what an ALJ must consider as opposed to what he must explain in the decision.” Mounts v. Astrue, 479 F. App’x 860, 866 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). As such, an ALJ is not required to go factor by factor through the evidence, discussing how the evidence relates to each factor. Instead, the ALJ need only set forth the specific evidence on which he relied.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require an exhaustive discussion of every factor when specific reasons and substantial evidence otherwise support the symptom finding.

MCCOY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-03-07(c)(3)

Notably, even if the ALJ had not fully and expressly discussed all the regulatory factors, that failure “does not warrant remand, given that his credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.” Lewis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. CV 15-1587, 2016 WL 4718215, at *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2016).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of relevant symptom factors but not a formal factor-by-factor recitation when the ALJ identifies the evidence supporting the assessment.

Case v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-13(c)(3)

In any event, a “formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence” is not required, “[s]o long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the claimant’s” symptoms. Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368, 1372 (10th Cir. 2000).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of symptom factors including treatment efforts, doctor contact, psychological and physical interaction, daily activities, and medication effects without demanding formal factor-by-factor findings.

Oakley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-14(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, the ALJ “need not make a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167 (quotations omitted).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires careful consideration of all symptom evidence under seven factors, but omission of a specific factor does not require remand when the rationale is discernible and supported.

DeMichele v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-15(c)(3)

The ALJ must provide specific reasons for the determination. Cichocki v. Astrue, 534 F. App’x 71, 76 (2d Cir. 2013). However, the failure to specifically reference a particular relevant factor does not undermine the ALJ's assessment as long as there is substantial evidence supporting the determination.

Section 404.1529(c) does not require rehashing every detail or expressly repeating a long work history when the symptom evaluation otherwise addresses the pertinent factors and is supported by substantial evidence.

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

An ALJ is not required to “rehash every detail each time he states conclusions on various subjects” or “discuss every detail related to every factor[.]” Gedatus v. Saul, 994 F.3d 893, 903 (7th Cir. 2021), and the ALJ’s evaluation of the severity of Plaintiff’s symptoms here is replete with references to the record evidence in support of his conclusions.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies seven nonexclusive symptom factors, but an ALJ need not discuss every factor or make a formal factor-by-factor recitation.

Nichols v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to discuss every factor. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8 (“If there is no information in the evidence of record regarding one of the factors, [the Commissioner] will not discuss that specific factor in the determination or decision because it is not relevant to the case.”). Further, the ALJ is not required to engage in “a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence” in this context.

Section 404.1529 incorporates the Polaski symptom factors and does not require mechanical discussion of each factor when the ALJ makes an express, evidence-supported determination.

Azar v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-27(c)

The ALJ is not mechanically obligated to discuss each of the above factors, however, when rejecting a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ must make an express determination detailing his or her reasons for discrediting the testimony, and the ALJ’s assessment must be based on substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not mandate a specific finding on every listed symptom factor when the decision otherwise shows that the ALJ considered the relevant evidence.

EARLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-04-09(c)(3)

In any event, even if the ALJ did not discuss every one of the regulatory factors, that failure does not require remand where substantial ... evidence otherwise supports the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of seven symptom factors but does not demand analysis of every factor when the decision shows consideration of the relevant evidence.

Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-08(c)(1)–(3)

While the ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors, he must show that he considered the relevant evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider seven symptom factors but not to make a formal factor-by-factor recitation when the specific relied-upon evidence is identified.

Garrison v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-17(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven symptom factors but not a formal factor-by-factor recitation when the ALJ identifies the specific evidence relied upon.

Salyers v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-07-26(c)(3)

“[S]o long as the ALJ ‘sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the [consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints],’ he need not make a ‘formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.’” Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1167 (10th Cir. 2012), quoting Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368, 1372 (10th Cir. 2000).

Section 404.1529 does not require an ALJ to discuss every symptom-evaluation factor explicitly when the decision permits meaningful review and the claimant merely disputes the outcome rather than the process used.

Lovelace v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(a)

Although the ALJ’s credibility determinations must be “based on a consideration of the entire case record[,]” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 247-248, the ALJ’s decision need not explicitly discuss each of the factors. See Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012). “While the ALJ must discuss significant evidence supporting his decision and explain his conclusions with sufficient detail to permit meaningful review, there is no requirement that the ALJ incorporate all the information upon which he relied into a single tidy paragraph.” Newsome v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:18-cv-2707, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223785, at *29 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2019).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires specific evidence supporting a symptom-consistency finding but does not require a formal factor-by-factor recitation.

Weems v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

As long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence she relies on in evaluating the consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints with other evidence, the ALJ “need not make a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167 (quotations omitted). “[C]ommon sense, not technical perfection, is [the reviewing court’s] guide.” Id.

Section 404.1529 does not require discussion of every Polaski factor before discounting subjective complaints, provided the ALJ acknowledges and considers the factors and substantial evidence supports the finding.

Holden v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-02

Here, the ALJ considered the Polaski factors. The adjudicator is “not required to discuss each Polaski factor as long as ‘[she] acknowledges and considers the factors before discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints.’” Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 524 (8th Cir. 2009)).

A symptom determination under Section 404.1529(c)(3) need not specifically reference every relevant factor when substantial evidence supports it and the court can discern the ALJ’s rationale.

Dzikowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-13(c)(3)

The ALJ must provide specific reasons for the determination. Cichocki, 534 F. App’x at 76. However, the failure to specifically reference a particular relevant factor does not undermine the ALJ’s assessment as long as there is substantial evidence supporting the determination. Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require exhaustive discussion of every possible symptom factor; the ALJ must specifically explain the finding and consider the factors relevant and available in the case.

DUARTE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-03-22(c)(3)

Moreover, even though consideration of each of the seven factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) is not required in every case, the ALJ here clearly examined and discussed those that were relevant. See S.S.R. 16-3p (explaining each factor will not necessarily be relevant or available in each case); Jones, 364 F.3d at 505 (requiring overall reasoning to be capable of meaningful review).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require methodical discussion of each symptom factor when the decision reflects that the ALJ acknowledged and considered the factors before discounting the complaints.

Rufener v. O'Malley · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

The Eighth Circuit has held that an ALJ is not required to discuss each Polaski factor methodically. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 791 (8th Cir. 2005); Brown v. Chater, 87 F.3d 963, 966 (8th Cir. 1996). The ALJ’s analysis will be accepted as long as the opinion reflects acknowledgment and consideration of the factors before discounting the claimant’s subjective complaints. Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000); see also Brown, 87 F.3d at 966.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require an exhaustive discussion of every potential symptom factor, and omission of some factors does not warrant remand when substantial evidence otherwise supports the ALJ’s clearly explained finding.

CONNOR-MOORE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)

Notably, even if the ALJ had not fully and expressly discussed all the regulatory factors, that failure “does not warrant remand, given that [her] credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.” Lewis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. CV 15-1587, 2016 WL 4718215, at *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2016); see also SSR 16-3p (cautioning that “not all of the types of evidence described below will be available or relevant in every case”) (referring to, inter alia, the regulatory factors under §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c)); Brewington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-CV-5482, 2024 WL 329529, at *11 n.17 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2024) (“The fact that an ALJ did not discuss all the factors of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, including Brewington’s type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication, does not warrant remand if substantial evidence otherwise supports the ALJ’s credibility determination.”) (citations omitted); Alejandra D. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. CV 22-175, 2023 WL 2609134, at *7–8 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2023) (“Yet while the ALJ must provide ‘specific reasons’ for his findings, he need not set out an exhaustive discussion of every potential factor listed in the regulations.”) (citations omitted); Mason v. Colvin, No. 15-1861, 2015 WL 6739108, at *6 (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 2015) (“The list [of factors contained in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)] is not comprehensive, nor is it mandatory for ALJs to go through each factor on the list in their opinions.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the regulatory symptom factors but does not require an ALJ to discuss every factor or every detail in the record.

Ana B. Molina Gonzalez v. Bisignano · filed 2025-11-25(c)(3)

In turn, in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms, the ALJ has to consider a variety of factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), including the duration, frequency, and intensity of the symptoms; the effectiveness and side effects of medication; and the claimant’s treatments other than medication. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii). In his decision, the ALJ need not discuss each of the regulatory factors. ... Nor does the ALJ need to “discuss every detail in the record as it relates to every factor”; “[s]ummaries of medical evidence, while definitionally ‘partial and selective,’ are appropriate.”

An ALJ need not discuss every Polaski factor if the decision acknowledges and considers the factors before discounting subjective complaints.

Keil · filed 2026-03-13(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.’” Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 524 (8th Cir. 2009)).

An ALJ evaluating symptoms need not expressly discuss every listed factor if the decision shows the relevant factors were considered.

Everett v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-09(c)(3)

Nevertheless, an ALJ is not required to discuss all these regulatory factors in the decision. ... Moreover, even if the ALJ did not explicitly state which factor he was addressing, it is clear the ALJ plainly considered the relevant regulatory factors as he is supposed to do.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of factors relevant to pain symptoms, but does not require the ALJ to discuss each factor explicitly if the decision shows they were considered.

Healer v. Saul · filed 2020-12-03(c)(3)

Section 404.1529(c)(3) describes the type of evidence regarding pain symptoms that will be considered in determining disability and lists specific factors to be considered, such as daily activities, location and intensity of pain, treatment, and medication. Neither this regulation nor the case law requires that an ALJ explicitly discuss each of these regulatory factors, so long as the administrative decision makes clear that the factors were in fact considered.

At the second step, an ALJ must consider all available evidence and the seven symptom factors, but need not discuss every factor if the decision gives precise supported reasons.

Giron v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-19(a)–(c)(3)

The ALJ need not discuss all the factors, however, as long as the decision includes precise reasoning, is supported by evidence in the case record, and clearly indicates the weight the ALJ gave to the claimant’s statements and the reasoning for that weight.

Section 404.1529 does not allow symptom allegations alone to establish disability and permits an ALJ to discount subjective complaints that are inconsistent with the record after considering the claimant’s testimony, reports, and medical evidence.

Lingenfelter v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-09

A claimant’s allegations alone can never establish that she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. An ALJ can discount a Plaintiff’s subjective complaints when they are unsupported by the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 595 (4th Cir. 1996).

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of all record evidence about symptom effects and permits an ALJ to discount testimony when medical records, testimony, and other evidence are inconsistent.

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

Under SSR 16-3p, an ALJ is to consider all of the evidence in the record in order to evaluate the limiting effects of a plaintiff's symptoms. Id., 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8 (listing factors); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c) and former SSR 96–7p. ... Thus, it is proper for an ALJ to discount the claimant's testimony, as the ALJ did in this case, where there are inconsistencies and contradictions among the medical records, his testimony, and other evidence.

Section 404.1529 does not require direct proof of a cause-and-effect relationship or a separate inconsistency for every alleged symptom; clearly articulated inconsistencies elsewhere in the record may support discounting the claimant’s symptom allegations as a whole.

Liggett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-08-26(c)(3), (c)(4)

As Plaintiff argues, direct evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between Plaintiff’s impairments and her allegations of symptoms is not required. However, neither is a direct inconsistency with each individual symptom alleged required to discount that symptom. ... Thus, while Plaintiff’s allegations of symptoms resulting from her migraines are primarily subjective and cannot be proven to be inconsistent, when considered in light of the totality of the inconsistencies relied upon by the ALJ, her decision to discount Plaintiff’s allegations of symptoms is supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and Plaintiff does not point to record evidence which compels a contrary decision. The court finds no error in the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s allegations of symptoms.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to assess symptom allegations against inconsistencies elsewhere in the record even when every inconsistency does not concern the particular pain allegation being challenged.

Burnett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-10-09(c)(3), (c)(4)

While not all the inconsistencies found by the ALJ demonstrate inconsistencies between her alleged disabling back pain and the record evidence, they do represent inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and the record evidence. The fact that many symptoms are not determinable by observation or medical testing is the reason for requiring the ALJ to consider all the evidence to evaluate a claimant’s allegations of symptoms. The ALJ did just that, she articulated the inconsistencies she found and provided her rationale for discounting Plaintiff’s allegations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider third-party function reports when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Gallegos v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-18(c)(3)

Plaintiff correctly regards this as legal error, since “an ALJ is specifically required to consider all medical and nonmedical evidence, including third party function reports.”

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of nonmedical evidence from family and friends, but does not require it to be articulated under the medical-opinion standards.

Warren v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-20

Further, while an ALJ must consider third-party evidence, including from family and friends, such evidence is not considered under the same standards as medical findings and opinions. ... When doing so, the ALJ minimally articulated its consideration of the third-party testimony and adequately built a logical bridge between the evidence and conclusions.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider third-party statements about a claimant’s symptoms.

Upshaw v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-19(c)(3)

The revised, now applicable, standard is not whether the ALJ disregarded such testimony. Rather, the ALJ must only “consider” such opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires consideration of other persons’ statements when evaluating symptoms, but failure to discuss cumulative statements can be harmless error.

Page v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-09-23(c)(4)

Nevertheless, it is undisputed that ALJs are required to consider all relevant evidence and provide a reasoned explanation for their conclusions when evaluating symptoms and assessing a claimant’s RFC. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your medical sources or other persons about how your symptoms affect you.”). ... After careful consideration and examination of the third-party evidence, the Court finds the third-party evidence is sufficiently cumulative such that the ALJ’s failure to discuss it or assign it a specific weight is, at most, harmless error.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider third-party statements when evaluating a claimant’s pain and symptoms.

Jockisch v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(a)

Failure to consider [her] testimony is contrary to the regulations. 20 CFR §§ 404.512(b)(1)(iii), 404.1513(d)(4), and 404.1529(a).

Before drawing a negative symptom inference from limited treatment, § 404.1529(c) requires consideration of explanations such as inability to afford care, and the ALJ must articulate enough reasoning to permit review of the relevant period.

Broersma v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-21(c)(1)-(3)

Based on this record, the Court concludes that the ALJ drew a negative inference from plaintiff’s failure to seek out medical treatment without adequately considering her inability to afford such treatment since her husband lost medical insurance in May 2020. Accordingly, this matter will be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ... Here, the Court cannot trace the ALJ’s reasoning with respect to plaintiff’s symptoms and limitations during the relevant time period.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) require symptom factors to be considered in relation to the whole record and explicit reasons, including a claimant’s explanation that lack of treatment resulted from lost insurance.

Vera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)–(4)

The ALJ adequately considered Plaintiff’s contention that she could not afford proper care due to lack of insurance, but nevertheless determined that there was no convincing evidence of Plaintiff attempting other avenues of free or low-cost treatment, and no evidence of Plaintiff needing emergency type services.

Section 404.1529(c) allows treatment history to inform symptom evaluation but requires an ALJ relying primarily on non-treatment to consider whether the claimant could afford the prescribed care.

Derossett v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-03-26(c)(1)–(4)

Therefore, an ALJ must consider whether the claimant can afford medical care before denying an application primarily because the claimant failed to obtain or comply with that medical care.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider gaps in treatment when evaluating reported symptoms if the ALJ also considers the claimant’s explanation that testing was unaffordable and the record shows little ongoing complaint tied to the unperformed testing.

Giacomo v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-28(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ considered Claimant’s assertion that she had, at times, been referred for testing that she has been unable to afford. (Tr. 751). However, the ALJ also noted that the records indicate little in the way of ongoing complaints connected to the symptoms for which testing was recommended. Id. See Lewis v. Berryhill, 680 F. App’x 646, 648-49 (10th Cir. 2017) (affirming an ALJ’s decision to consider the fact that the claimant did not take pain medications, so long as the ALJ considers the claimant’s explanation).

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

White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-03(a)

Relevant evidence includes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also SSR 96-8p.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s statements about symptoms and how those symptoms affect daily life and work.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-15(a)

The ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about her symptoms, such as pain, and how the symptoms affect her daily life and ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2 (Oct. 25, 2017). ... Further, the ALJ did not properly consider the Plaintiff’s migraine and headache evidence in analyzing her subjective symptoms. This error requires remand.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of a claimant’s statements about how symptoms affect functioning along with medical evidence.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-24(a)

Relevant evidence includes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5, at *13–14. ... In short, the ALJ failed to follow proper legal standards in evaluating Miller’s double- vision symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires alleged symptoms to arise from a medically determinable impairment and to be evaluated against the entire record, including work history, without requiring explicit discussion of every factor.

Hoover v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-22(b), (c)(3)

Once the ALJ has found that a medically determinable impairment has been established, the ALJ must then evaluate the claimant’s allegations about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of his or her symptoms against the evidence of record. ... But while the plaintiff’s work history must be considered as part of the ALJ’s broader view of the record in evaluating his or her symptoms, see, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (“We will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record . . . .”), there is no error in an ALJ’s failure to explicitly discuss the plaintiff’s work history in the ALJ’s evaluation of the plaintiff’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529 permits a limited work history suggesting little motivation to work to serve as one clear and convincing reason for discounting symptom claims.

Bollar v. Saul · filed 2023-09-27

It is well-established that evidence of a poor work history that suggests a claimant is not motivated to work is a permissible reason to discredit a claimant’s testimony that she is unable to work. ... This finding is supported by substantial evidence and provides a clear and convincing reason to discredit Plaintiff’s symptom claims.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s work history when evaluating the credibility of symptom allegations, but does not require the ALJ to discuss that history explicitly.

Wiseman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-31(c)(3)

Moreover, the ALJ was required to consider Plaintiff's work history in determining his credibility, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), but was not required to explicitly discuss the same, Dutkiewicz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 663 F. App’x 430, 433 (6th Cir. 2016). The mere fact that Plaintiff's work history was one consideration for the ALJ to consider, and supported Plaintiff's credibility, does not at all show why the ALJ’s ultimate credibility determination lacked substantial support.

Although subsection (c)(3) requires consideration of work history, an ALJ need not explicitly discuss work history in every case when the broader record-based symptom determination remains adequately supported.

Graham v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-18(c)(3)

Reading the ALJ’s decision as whole, we cannot say that her failure to specifically discuss Graham’s work history in connection with her credibility determination was error.

Subsection (c)(3)’s prior-work-record factor governs evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence, not evaluation of medical-opinion evidence.

Ronquillo v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-03(c)(3)

This regulation explains that information about a claimant’s prior work record, inter alia, will be considered when evaluating the intensity and persistence of alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). It does not address the relevance of a claimant’s work history when evaluating medical opinion evidence.

An ALJ need not cite or discuss every subsection (c)(3) factor, including work history, when the decision as a whole shows that the factor was considered.

Conrad v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-04(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to cite or discuss every factor used to evaluate the consistency of a plaintiff’s description of symptoms with the record evidence. ... Nevertheless, when reviewing the decision as a whole, the Court concludes the ALJ clearly considered plaintiff’s extensive work history and earnings.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s work history when evaluating symptoms but does not require a separate discussion of that history.

Capps v. Dudek · filed 2025-07-09(c)(3)

Although SSRs 96-8p and 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) require the ALJ to consider a broad spectrum of evidence, including claimant’s work history as part of the overall assessment of the claimant’s symptom testimony, district courts have recently held that these regulations do not mandate a specific discussion of work history.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s work record when evaluating symptom claims.

Cook v. Saul · filed 2021-01-15

Evidence of a poor work history that suggests a claimant is not motivated to work is a permissible reason to discredit a claimant’s testimony that she is unable to work. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 959; SSR 96–7 (factors to consider in evaluating credibility include “prior work record and efforts to work”); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (work record can be considered in assessing credibility); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 (same). ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s symptom claims are inconsistent with his work history.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s prior work record but does not require a discussion of work history.

Archuleta v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-15(c)(3)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) states that an ALJ will “consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record” but does not require an ALJ to include a discussion related to work history.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating symptoms, but does not require the ALJ to discuss work history whose significance the claimant has not explained.

(SS) Prine, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-09(c)(3)

True, social security regulations require an ALJ to consider “all of the evidence presented, including information about [a claimant’s] prior work record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that the ALJ erred by failing to discuss it, especially considering that the ALJ otherwise gave multiple reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s credibility, which reasons Plaintiff does not challenge.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for consideration of the claimant’s prior work record but does not require the ALJ to discuss a strong work history as a factor in evaluating symptoms.

Hawkins v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-16(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the appropriate factors in his determination and need not consider Plaintiffs “strong work history” under § 404.1529(c)(3) and SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating statements about symptoms.

Boykin v. Saul · filed 2023-01-13(c)(3)

In addition, the ALJ reasonably considered Claimant’s employment history in comparison with her subjective symptom allegations and found that they were not entirely consistent. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (“We will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record . . . .”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows an ALJ to consider prior work history as an indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

JACKSON v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-07-20(c)(3)

“Information about [a claimant’s] prior work record” can still be considered, but only as an “indicator of the intensity and persistence” of the claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) allows an ALJ to consider work history as one factor in evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms without requiring a particular conclusion from it.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-05(c)

Clark points to his work history after the alleged onset of his disability as evidence of his credibility, but the Court discerns no error in the magistrate judge’s reasoning that the ALJ was permitted to consider Plaintiff’s work history as supporting his subjective complaints, just as he was permitted to consider that it undercut his claim of disability due to the lack of medical evidence showing any real change or worsening of his CRPS symptoms, but he was not compelled to reach either conclusion. A claimant’s work history is only one of many factors an ALJ can consider in evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating symptoms, but does not require the ALJ to assign it weight or discuss it separately.

Ault · filed 2025-10-21(c)(3)

The regulations provide that the ALJ will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about prior work record, statements about symptoms, evidence submitted by medical sources, and observations made by others. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. However, nothing in the regulations requires that the ALJ discuss every factor considered. It is apparent the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s work history. Tr. 20-21. The Court declines to impose any specific requirement to assign weight or otherwise discuss Plaintiff’s work history, although the ALJ may choose to do if appropriate.

Section 404.1529(c) makes treatment effectiveness relevant but requires improvement to be evaluated in the overall diagnostic context rather than from isolated favorable records.

(SS) Cabeje v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-26(c)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant's symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); see Warre v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits) (internal citations omitted); see also Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant's complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations). Furthermore, evidence of “conservative treatment” is sufficient to discount a claimant's testimony regarding the severity of an impairment. ... However, symptom improvement should be considered within the context of the “overall diagnostic picture.”

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ evaluating symptoms after a period of disability to rely on post-period unremarkable findings, lack of hospitalization, conservative treatment, effective medication without adverse effects, daily activities, and work history when the analysis considers the record as a whole.

Terry v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3), (c)(4)

The medical evidence cited by the ALJ – generally unremarkable findings, no hospitalizations during the relevant period, and routine and conservative treatment – supports the ALJ’s finding that Mr. Terry’s allegations of disabling limitations were not fully consistent with the evidence. See supra Section IV.A (reviewing medical records post-April 2, 2023). The ALJ also discussed the use of medication without adverse side effects to control Mr. Terry’s symptoms. ... Although the ALJ also discussed Mr. Terry’s activities of daily living and work history, R. 38, this consideration is specifically provided for by the regulations. The ALJ’s consideration of these factors was not selective, and, instead, the ALJ’s decision demonstrates he considered the evidence as a whole.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider all relevant evidence and not disregard relevant records.

Haskins v. OMalley · filed 2025-09-11(a)

The ALJ must consider all evidence and cannot disregard relevant records. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 404.1545(a)(1); ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements, and remand is therefore warranted.

In fibromyalgia cases, the ALJ must examine the entire record and discuss the symptom factors pertinent to the evidence.

Supper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-26(c)(3)

The ALJ need only discuss those factors that are pertinent based upon the evidence in the record.

The ALJ properly applied the symptom factors, and substantial evidence supported the resulting assessment of the claimant’s alleged limitations.

Hernandez v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-27(c)(3)

In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ properly considered the Section 404.1529 factors. Additionally, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination.

An ALJ may not discredit pain testimony and deny benefits solely because objective medical evidence does not support the alleged degree of pain.

Fink v. O'Malley · filed 2023-09-27(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s pain testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of pain alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) bars rejecting symptom testimony solely for lack of objective support and requires discussion of the claimant’s testimony and daily activities.

BOWLIN v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-03-05(c)

Thus, by the ALJ’s own explanation, the only reason for rejecting Plaintiffs testimony was the lack of objective findings to provide support for his allegations of disabling symptoms, but without any discussion of his testimony and his reported pain-related symptoms.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) require other evidence to be used in evaluating symptom intensity and prohibit exclusive reliance on objective medical evidence.

Maywald v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-21(c)(2)–(3)

All three legal errors warrant remand. Kalmbach, 409 F. App’x at 859.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

(SS) Alikah v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-28(c)(2)

“The fact that a claimant’s testimony is not fully corroborated by the objective medical findings, in and of itself, is not a clear and convincing reason for rejecting it.” Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). Rather, where a claimant’s symptom testimony is not fully substantiated by the objective medical record, the ALJ must provide additional reasons for discounting the testimony. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or work effects solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, but permits evaluating those statements against the record as a whole.

Simpson · filed 2026-03-06(c)(2)

An ALJ may not consider only objective medical evidence in determining disability unless this evidence alone supports a finding of disability. ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of plaintiff’s subjective allegations and her conclusion that such allegations were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence of record.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence one factor in evaluating symptoms and prohibits disregarding pain allegations solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Summit · filed 2026-03-23(c)(2)

But such objective medical evidence is just one factor the Commissioner considers and is not, by itself, a basis for disregarding claimant’s allegations of symptoms, including pain. ... The ALJ therefore did not err in relying on objective medical evidence to support his RFC determination.

Section 404.1529 requires an underlying condition and objective confirmation or reasonable causation, followed by evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, work effects, and inconsistencies.

Harrison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-12(a), (c)(1), (3)-(4)

To establish a disability based upon a complaint of disabling symptoms, a claimant must show: (1) evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged symptoms, or (b) the objectively determined medical condition can be reasonably expected to give rise to the claimed symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929.

Section 404.1529(a)-(b) requires an underlying medical condition and either objective confirmation of symptom severity or a condition reasonably capable of producing the alleged symptoms.

Fretwell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-03-20(a)-(b)

The plaintiff must show evidence of the underlying medical condition and either (1) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged symptoms arising from the condition or (2) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such a severity that it can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b), 416.929(a), (b); Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p: Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, SSR 16-3P (S.S.A. Mar. 16, 2016); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002).

An ALJ need not cite the Eleventh Circuit’s pain standard if the ALJ applies § 404.1529 when evaluating symptoms.

Rivers v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-28

Thus, failure to cite to the Eleventh Circuit standard is not reversible error so long as the ALJ applies the appropriate regulation. Here, the ALJ cited the appropriate regulations and noted that that she considered all symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms could reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929 and SSRs 96-4p and 96-7p.

Subsection 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the full record and its listed symptom factors, and an ALJ must identify which testimony is discounted and connect it to the evidence rather than merely reciting the medical record.

Kendrick · filed 2026-02-11(c)(3)

The ALJ is instructed to “consider all of the evidence in an individual’s record,” “to determine how symptoms limit ability to perform work-related activities.” SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *2. When evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, the following factors should be considered: (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. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7-8; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ failed to identify with specificity what testimony was not credible and what evidence undermined Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of all symptom factors and forbids discounting symptoms solely for lack of objective support; normal observations must be connected logically to the specific allegations.

HEAD v. O'MALLEY · filed 2023-09-27(c)(3)

An individual's statements about intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms may not be disregarded “solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged by the individual.” ... Because the ALJ failed to create a logical bridge, the ALJ's subjective-symptom finding is patently wrong, requiring reversal and remand.

Section 404.1529(c) requires a reasoned explanation linking evidence to rejection of symptoms; even a thorough evidence summary cannot substitute for that link.

WILSON v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-02-14(c)

In this case, the ALJ wholly failed to fulfill her duty to provide a reasoned explanation for her subjective symptom evaluation, which includes her implicit rejection of Claimant's testimony regarding his daily headaches. This requires remand.

When allegations are found not entirely consistent, an ALJ must consider both medical evidence and other evidence such as statements, activities, treatment response, and third-party observations.

Stoner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-27(c)(2)–(3)

Therefore, in a decision where a claimant’s allegations about the degree of his or her impairment are found “not entirely consistent” with the record, an ALJ is required to consider both “medical” and “other” evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) requires comparison of alleged limitations with medical and nonmedical evidence.

Towers v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-28(a)

In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, an ALJ must consider all available evidence, including the claimant’s medical history and statements, and determine the extent to which the claimant’s alleged limitations are consistent with both the medical and non-medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ evaluating mental symptoms to compare a claimant’s statements with objective examination findings, treatment history, medical opinions, and daily activities.

Houser · filed 2026-03-11(c)(4)

However, the ALJ reasonably found that Plaintiff’s reported symptoms were inconsistent with objective medical evidence. ... The ALJ thus considered Plaintiff’s allegations of debilitating mental impairment (Tr. 22, 27) and reasonably discounted them as inconsistent with the evidence detailed above, including Dr. Zone’s opinion, normal examination results, and failure to pursue relevant treatment.

Section 404.1529 permits discounting alleged limitations when the ALJ explains their inconsistency with daily functioning, examinations, medical opinions, treatment response, and other evidence.

Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-04-08(c)

The ALJ concluded that Palmer’s alleged limitations were not consistent with his “reported daily functioning,” “exam[] findings of record, and the persuasive portions of the medical opinions.” ... In short, the ALJ explained why he discounted Palmer’s allegations of limitations.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of all symptoms and how far they are reasonably consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Pagan v. O'Malley · filed 2025-10-06(a)

The regulations require consideration of all symptoms and the extent to which such symptoms are reasonably consistent with the objective medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(c) permits medical opinions and objective evidence to inform how far symptoms limit work capacity and allows partially crediting subjective statements when the whole record supports an intermediate RFC.

Antonacci v. Saul · filed 2023-09-28(c)

The ALJ was entitled to determine that Plaintiff's subjective statements about his symptoms conflicted with the medical record. ... Viewing the record as a whole, the ALJ had the opportunity to observe Plaintiff testifying and provided valid reasons for partially discounting Plaintiff's subjective statements as to his symptoms and fairly determined Plaintiff had a residual functional capacity for light work with additional limitations.

Subsection 404.1529(a) requires careful consideration of a claimant's symptom statements but does not require the ALJ to credit them when contrary evidence exists, provided the ALJ gives reasons for discounting them.

JORDAN · filed 2026-02-06(a)

“Although ‘any statements of the individual concerning [his] symptoms must be carefully considered,’ the ALJ is not required to credit them.” Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 363 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing SSR 96–7p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)). ... An ALJ may disregard a claimant’s subjective complaints when contrary evidence exists in the record. Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1067-68 (3d Cir. 1993). However, the ALJ must provide her reasons for discounting a claimant’s testimony. Burnett, 220 F.3d at 122; Matullo v. Bowen, 926 F.2d 240, 245 (3d Cir. 1990).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective complaints not substantiated by objective medical evidence to consider seven factors concerning the claimant’s pain, treatment, daily activities, and resulting limitations.

Nina v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-15(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

If the claimant’s allegations of pain and limitation are “not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” Meadors, 370 F. App’x at 184. This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Under § 404.1529(c)(2) and (c)(3)(i), an ALJ may assess subjective symptom allegations by considering objective medical evidence and whether the allegations conflict with the claimant’s daily activities.

(SS) Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-17(c)(2), (c)(3)(i)

Testimony that contradicts “the medical record is a sufficient basis for rejecting the claimant’s subjective testimony.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (objective medical evidence is useful in assessing symptoms); Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for SSI benefits”). ... As to pain, the court finds that the ALJ adequately explained how the medical record undermined plaintiff’s subjective testimony, pointing to specific instances in the record where plaintiff’s pain was well controlled with treatment. ... The ALJ reasonably found plaintiff’s subjective allegations regarding her fatigue and pain to be inconsistent with her daily activities. AR 23, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Smartt, 53 F.4th at 499 (“An ALJ may also consider whether the claimant engages in daily activities inconsistent with the alleged symptoms”) (quotation omitted). ... Because the court finds that the ALJ gave at least two adequate reasons for discrediting plaintiff’s subjective testimony, there is no error on this point.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (c)(3)(i) allow objective medical evidence and daily activities to be considered when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

(SS) Peters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-18(c)(2), (c)(3)(i)

The ALJ provided at least two satisfactory reasons for discrediting plaintiff’s subjective pain testimony and concluding that plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (objective medical evidence is useful in assessing symptoms); Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin. 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for SSI benefits”). AR 19. First, the ALJ found that plaintiff’s statements were contradicted by the plaintiff’s “somewhat normal level of daily activity and interaction.” AR 19, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Smartt, 53 F.4th at 499 (“An ALJ may also consider whether the claimant engages in daily activities inconsistent with the alleged symptoms”) (quotation omitted). The ALJ specifically referenced plaintiff’s ability to drive, perform household chores, use his cell phone, and cook. AR 19.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) allows an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment and medication when evaluating the claimant’s symptoms, including whether conservative or routine treatment is consistent with allegedly disabling symptoms.

Akbarshahi v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-18(c)(3)(v)

Finally, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by describing Plaintiff’s treatment as “routine” or “conservative.” However, the Social Security Regulations allow the ALJ to consider the treatment and medication in determining a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(3)(v). It was appropriate for the ALJ to consider the level of treatment Plaintiff received in analyzing his symptoms. See Silvia P. v. O'Malley, No. 23 CV 1450, 2024 WL 3455021, at *7 (N.D. Ill. July 18, 2024) (“In evaluating the plaintiff's credibility, the ALJ appropriately considered the conservative nature of the plaintiff's treatment”). The ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s conservative treatment was in line with his non-disabling symptoms, (R. 60, 63), which supported the ALJ’s conclusions. The ALJ’s citing to and relying upon conservative or routine treatment was not patently wrong, and the Court rejects this argument as well.

Section 404.1529(c)(3), as applied through SSR 16-3p, requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s explanation for not seeking treatment before relying on limited treatment to discount the claimant’s symptoms.

Leslie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-18(c)(3)

Social Security Regulation (“SSR”) 16-3p provides guidance in the application of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which states that the Administration “will carefully consider” information it has about the claimant’s symptoms, including information about medications and treatments. According to SSR 16-3p, the Administration may not use the failure to pursue treatment as a reason for discounting an individual’s claims regarding symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects, “without considering possible reasons he or she may not . . . [s]eek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints.” SSR 16-3p at *8. ... Thus, the Court believes the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s explanation against competing evidence in the record to reach her conclusion.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires evaluating whether a claimant’s symptom allegations can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, rather than whether they are entirely consistent.

Deville v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-20(c)(4)

Here, as in Mogdis, the ALJ evaluated plaintiff’s subjective complaints using a legal standard of whether plaintiff’s allegations were “entirely consistent” with the evidence of record rather the standard set forth in the regulations, i.e., whether plaintiff’s allegations “can reasonably be accepted as consistent” with the evidence of record.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptom statements against the entire record, including objective and opinion evidence; it does not require crediting those statements merely because they align with selected medical opinions.

LITTLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-09-19(c)(4)

This is not the rule. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ to consider the claimant’s testimony in the context of all the record evidence, including objective and opinion evidence, and the ALJ did so here. The ALJ explained that Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence within the record for the reasons explained in this decision.” (R. 29). This statement was adequate to show that the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s testimony in the context of the wider record, including Drs. Orr and Tiller’s opinions.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven factors when subjective symptoms are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, including the claimant’s daily activities.

Mountain v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-25(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii)). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable law. ... Lastly, the ALJ reasonably gave some weight to evidence that Plaintiff engaged in a wider array of activities than she alleged. (T at 16). While ALJs must not overinterpret a claimant’s ability to perform limited activities of daily living, the regulations permit consideration of the claimant’s “daily activities” when assessing credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... The ALJ offered specific support for the decision to discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of disabling symptoms, including a reasonable reading of the treatment notes and clinical assessments and proper consideration of the activities of daily living.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) does not permit an ALJ to reject a medical opinion solely for lacking objective evidence when the claimant has fibromyalgia, which is not easily substantiated by objective measures.

Music v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-27(c)(2)-(3)

The ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Whitney’s opinion, citing Plaintiff’s “stability with medication” and normal physical observations, missed the mark. AR at 26. An ALJ may not reject a medical opinion solely because it lacks objective evidence, especially when the condition, like fibromyalgia, is one that is not easily substantiated through objective measures. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3); see Beneke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 594 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring objective evidence for fibromyalgia is improper; “sheer disbelief is no substitute for substantial evidence”).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider symptom testimony, objective medical evidence, and other record evidence, and does not permit rejecting subjective complaints solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.

Graham v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-30(c), (c)(2)

When an ALJ evaluates a claimant’s symptoms, he considers symptom testimony, objective medical evidence, and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). An ALJ “may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.” Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). However, an ALJ may “reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of [the] symptoms” provided that the ALJ also explain his decision “by providing specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so.” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 488–89 (9th Cir. 2015). ... Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err by discounting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. See Orn, 495 F.3d at 630.

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

Lau v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Finally, the ALJ did not err by failing to explicitly discuss plaintiff’s daily activities in 2013 and 2014. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). “The regulation requires that an ALJ consider the factors listed” in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), “but does not require an ALJ to discuss each factor in the written decision.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s medication and other treatment, including its conservative nature, when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

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

Notwithstanding plaintiff’s objection (Pl. Br. at 24), ALJ Ramos appropriately considered that plaintiff sought only conservative treatment for her alleged impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (medication and treatment received are considered when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant's symptoms); see also Penfield v. Colvin, 563 F. App’x 839, 840 (2d Cir. 2014) (conservative treatment weighed against a finding of disability); Netter v. Astrue, 272 F. App’x 54, 56 (2d Cir. 2008) (an ALJ may consider a claimant’s conservative treatment as additional evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination); Shaffer v. Colvin, No. 1:14-CV-00745, 2015 WL 9307349, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2015) (ALJ properly discredited the claimant’s allegations because her treatment was routine and conservative, consisting of medication management and physical therapy).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider the frequency of treatment when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Steinkamp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-11(c)(3)

The ALJ properly found frequency of treatment as a reasonable basis to consider when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.920(c)(3); see also SSR 16-3p (“[I]f the frequency or extent of the treatment sought by an individual is not comparable with the degree of the individual’s subjective complaints . . . we may find the alleged intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence of record.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to reject symptom allegations that are inconsistent with a claimant’s activities of daily living.

Ramirez v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-22(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may reject symptom allegations that are inconsistent with a claimant’s ability to perform normal activities of daily living. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... The ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff’s activities of daily living exceed his alleged limitations is supported by substantial evidence and is a reasonable reading of the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies factors relevant to evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Franklin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-10-24(c)(3)

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations suggesting relevant factors to be considered in evaluating a claimant’s allegations of symptoms: Daily activities; location, duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms; factors precipitating and aggravating symptoms; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications taken to relieve symptoms; treatment for symptoms; measures the claimant has taken to relieve symptoms; and other factors concerning limitations or restrictions resulting from ... symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i-vii). ... Plaintiff’s argument the ALJ failed to evaluate the intensity and persistence of her symptoms, determine how much they affected Plaintiff’s ability to perform work-related activities, consider the regulatory factors for evaluating them, and provide specific reasons, clearly articulated, for the weight given to Plaintiff's allegations, also fails.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes daily activities and treatment relevant to assessing subjective symptoms, but an ALJ relying on those factors must identify the rejected testimony and explain how the factors undermine it.

(SS) Maldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-02(c)(3)

While the ALJ properly referenced factors relevant to his assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective allegations pursuant to Social Security Rule (SSR) 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3), 404.1529(c)(3) (AR 27), he did not identify the specific testimony that he found ... not to be credible, nor did he offer explanations for how Plaintiff’s reported activities of daily living and “treatment modalities” (AR 31) undermine Plaintiff’s specific symptom claims, particularly as to her claimed mental health limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements.

Hladky v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-28(c)(4)

Certainly, a plaintiff’s inconsistent statements can be said to undermine the credibility of the allegations. Grotts, 27 F.4th at 1279; Zoch, 981 F.3d at 601. Contrary to what plaintiff appears to be arguing, SSR 16-3p does not preclude an ALJ from considering inconsistent statements like these. In fact, and not surprisingly, it specifically calls for it, see SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, *8 ("... we will compare statements an individual makes in connection with the individual's claim for disability benefits with any existing statements the individual made under other circumstances."), as do the regulations. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess whether a claimant’s symptoms are consistent with objective medical evidence and permits treatment to be considered when evaluating subjective allegations.

Hammitt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-05(a), (c)(2), (c)(3)(iv)-(v)

In evaluating objective medical evidence and recorded treatment plans against the credibility of other evidence (such as self-reported symptoms), the ALJ must consider the extent to which such “symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also C.F.R. 20 § 404.1529(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on your ability to work.”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), (v) (affording discretion to ALJ to consider claimant’s treatment as one factor when evaluating subjective allegations); SSR 16-3p (“The intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of many symptoms can be clinically observed and recorded in the medical evidence. Examples such as reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, and motor disruption illustrate findings that may result from, or be associated with, the symptom of pain.”). ... Thus, the ALJ reasonably considered the objective medical evidence and treatment plan available in the record when formulating the RFC—affording the ALJ to consider such evidence against the totality of the longitudinal case record inclusive of the subjective reports of the plaintiff.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating subjective complaints not substantiated by objective medical evidence to consider seven factors concerning the claimant’s activities, symptoms, treatment, relief measures, and resulting limitations.

Castillo v. O'Malley · filed 2024-11-07(c)(3)(i)–(vii)

“That credibility inquiry implicates seven factors to be considered, including: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain” Id. at 184 n.1 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider conservative treatment when evaluating a claimant’s subjective statements about pain or other symptoms.

ROBIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-11-12(c)(3)(v)

In conducting this evaluation, an ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence as well as other evidence relevant to a claimant’s subjective symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (listing the following factors to consider: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, currently received or have received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures currently used or have used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms). ... However, the ALJ did not err when considering Plaintiff’s conservative treatment in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(vi) permits an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of conservative treatment when evaluating the reliability of a claimant’s symptom testimony.

Ma v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-13(c)(3)(iv)–(vi)

As the Commissioner points out, the effectiveness of conservative treatment is a relevant factor an ALJ may consider when evaluating the reliability of symptom testimony. (Doc. 12 at 7 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(vi)).) ... Thus, the ALJ’s decision to discount Ma’s symptom testimony based on its inconsistency with her symptom relief from conservative treatment is supported by substantial evidence. The court finds no error in the ALJ’s reasoning.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i), (iv), and (v) identifies daily activities, medications, and treatment as factors an ALJ considers when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Barker v. O'Malley · filed 2024-11-18(c)(3)(i), (iv), and (v)

Nonetheless, despite the limited evidence, the ALJ detailed the objective evidence of record and provided several reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of additional, disabling limitations.... Specifically, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff’s positive response to treatment... and relatively normal activities of daily living weighed against a finding of disability.... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), (iv) and (v) (identifying daily activities, medications and treatment as factors used by ALJ when considering subjective symptoms).

Section 404.1529 requires symptom allegations to be evaluated for consistency with objective medical evidence and permits treatment history and daily activities to be considered.

Saathoff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-19(a), (c)(2), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv)-(v)

In evaluating objective medical evidence and recorded treatment plans against the credibility of other evidence (such as self-reported symptoms), the ALJ must consider the extent to which such “symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence.” ... Most notably—consistent with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v)—the ALJ relied on the unremarkable or “minimal” post-surgery treatment plan as evidenced in the record. ... These were reasonable considerations in the ALJ’s assessment of credibility of the subjective statements by plaintiff. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Green, 781 F. App’x at 526 (“ALJs are tasked with reviewing the evidence provided and assessing whether a claimant is exaggerating the effects of her impairments, and reviewing daily-living activities is an important part of that evaluation.”); Alvarado v. Colvin, 836 F.3d 744, 750 (7th Cir. 2016) (ALJ properly considered the activities of daily living).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the claimant’s subjective symptom statements.

Mart v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-19(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptoms, but the ALJ must consider the extent of those activities, including qualifying limitations.

Darden v. Colvin · filed 2024-11-22(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may consider daily activities when evaluating symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... While ALJ Ofori-Acquaah cited one instance of Plaintiff’s ability to walk, she failed to reconcile this with evidence in the record of numerous instances of Plaintiff’s walking limitations, including that Plaintiff needs to rest after walking or exerting himself for short periods of time. ... The ALJ failed to “‘build an accurate and logical bridge’ from the evidence to [her] conclusion.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of medication when assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

PRINZI v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-12-02(c)(3)(iv)

However, Plaintiff overlooks that the ALJ may consider the effectiveness of medication in assessing the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv). Moreover, unlike in Morales, the ALJ here did not supplant his lay opinion by concluding that the claimant could return to work because he was stable and well controlled with medication.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to reassess a claimant’s testimony when the medical evidence on which the testimony assessment partly depends must be reevaluated after the record is properly developed.

Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-04(c)

The ALJ will also have the benefit of reviewing additional records, including those submitted to the Appeals Council, and re-evaluating the medical opinion evidence in light of the completed record. An ALJ’s assessment of a claimant’s testimony relies in part on the assessment of the medical evidence, see 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c), and Plaintiff’s testimony should be reassessed on remand once the record has been properly developed.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms against the entire record and prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Miles v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-09(a), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(4)

The ALJ must “consider all [Plaintiff’s] symptoms . . . and the extent to which [Plaintiff’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... An ALJ should not “reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms or about the effect [the claimant’s] symptoms have on [the claimant’s] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... Upon review of the record, the Court agrees with the Commissioner, and finds that the ALJ’s evaluation of the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff’s symptoms was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective allegations of pain and limitation that are not substantiated by objective medical evidence to consider seven factors, including daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, other relief measures, and functional restrictions.

Peyton v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-09(c)(3)

If the claimant’s allegations of pain and limitation are “not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” Meadors, 370 F. App’x at 184. This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii)). ... Here, the ALJ offered specific support for the decision to discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, including a reasonable reading of the treatment notes, clinical assessments, and medical opinions and proper consideration of the activities of daily living.

Section 404.1529 requires an RFC assessment to address a claimant’s reported symptoms and permits consideration of objective medical evidence and daily activities when evaluating those symptoms.

Collins v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-15(c)(3)(i), (c)(4)

The RFC assessment must address Claimant’s reported symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304; Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167, 1171 (10th Cir. 2009) (“Since the purpose of the credibility evaluation is to help the ALJ assess a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ’s credibility and RFC determinations are inherently intertwined.”). ... Objective medical evidence is highly relevant to the symptom evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“[W]e will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence.”); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5 (“[O]bjective medical evidence is a useful indicator to help make reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of symptoms[.]”). ... A disability claimant’s activities are also relevant to the symptom evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... In summary, the ALJ provided several well-supported reasons to support his conclusion that Claimant’s reports of disabling symptoms were inconsistent with other evidence in compliance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to discount subjective symptom testimony when the alleged severity is inconsistent with the medical record, daily activities, the claimant's own statements, and evidence about the effectiveness of medication or other treatment.

Cochran v. King · filed 2025-02-06(c)(3)(iv)-(v), (c)(4)

As to the second step, despite Cochran’s assertion to the contrary, the ALJ provided specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting Cochran’s testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms. These reasons were supported by “substantial evidence.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 500 (9th Cir. 2022). Here, the ALJ discounted Cochran’s testimony on the severity of his limitations, both physical and mental, because it was inconsistent with the medical record, inconsistent with Cochran’s daily activities, and inconsistent with Cochran’s own statements in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (explaining that the ALJ considers the effectiveness of medications and other treatment in evaluating the reliability of symptom testimony); id. § 404.1529(c)(4) (explaining that the ALJ considers the extent to which the claimant’s allegations are consistent with the objective medical and other evidence); Smartt, 53 F.4th at 499 (explaining that the ALJ may discredit a claimant’s symptoms testimony as inconsistent with reported daily activities).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s testimony about symptoms and related treatments when it can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence, although the testimony alone cannot establish disability.

Thorlton v. King · filed 2025-02-11(a), (c)(3)–(4)

While a claimant’s testimony about their symptoms and related treatments “will not alone establish” that the claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider such testimony if it “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (c)(3)–(4); see SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, 82 Fed. Reg. 49462, 49464 (Oct. 25, 2017) (“We will not evaluate an individual’s symptoms based solely on objective medical evidence unless that objective medical evidence supports a finding that the individual is disabled.”).

Section 404.1529(a) makes a claimant’s testimony about the use of and need for an assistive device insufficient by itself to establish that the device is medically required.

Thompson v. King · filed 2025-02-20(a)

To the extent that Thompson is relying on her own testimony about her use of and need for an assistive device, her testimony is insufficient to show such devices were medically required. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires ALJs to weigh allegations of subjective pain against multiple regulatory factors before accepting them.

Ortiz-Arce v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-24(c)(3)

Both this statement and the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain, with reference to the medical record, are consistent with the regulation’s direction to ALJs to weigh allegations of subjective pain against multiple regulatory factors before accepting them. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); see Knox, 327 F. App’x at 655.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) and (c)(4) permit consideration of treatment effectiveness when weighing a claimant’s symptom allegations, but treatment that merely provides some relief does not justify rejecting the allegations unless it controls the symptoms so they are no longer debilitating.

Swanson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-27(c)(3)(iv), (c)(4)

The effectiveness of treatment can be considered when weighing a claimant’s allegations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv); 404.1529(c)(4); 416.929(c)(3)(iv); 416.929(c)(4); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *8. “But to reject a claimant’s testimony, it is not enough for the ALJ to show that the pain was responsive to treatment; the ALJ must show that the pain was ‘controlled,’ i.e., no longer debilitating.” Lopez v. Colvin, 194 F. Supp. 3d 903, 911 (D. Ariz. 2016) (quoting Warre, 439 F.3d at 1006). The ALJ did not do so here. ... Because the ALJ did not find Swanson’s migraine symptoms were controlled, she erred in considering the effectiveness of treatment to discount Swanson’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) and (v) make the effectiveness of medication or treatment relevant when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

(SS) Wescott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-06(c)(3)(iv),(v)

The effectiveness of medication or treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv),(v); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[E]vidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars an ALJ from rejecting a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, while permitting consideration of non-medical evidence such as daily activities and witness observations.

Lyons v. SSA · filed 2025-03-07(c)(2)

ALJs cannot reject a claimant’s “statements about the intensity and persistence of [his] pain or other symptoms . . . solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); accord Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1039 (6th Cir. 1994). Other than medical evidence, ALJs should consider: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency and intensity of her pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication he takes to alleviate his pain; (5) treatment other than medication; (6) any measures he uses to relieve his pain; and (7) other factors concerning his functional limitations and restrictions due to pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)(i)–(vii); Felisky, 35 F.3d at 1039. The regulations also permit ALJs to consider “observations by our employees and other persons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.159(c)(3). ALJs do not have to include “a factor-by-factor discussion” of these considerations in their opinions. Storey v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 98-1628, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 8357, at *9 (6th Cir. Apr. 27, 1999). ... The ALJ did not rely only on the objective medical evidence to find that B.L.’s account of his pain lacked credibility. C.f. Felisky, 35 F.3d at 1039 (ALJ only considered the medical record). Instead, the ALJ properly exercised his discretion to discount B.L.’s credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v) permits an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication, as well as other treatment received to relieve pain or other symptoms.

Alvarado v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-12(c)(3)(iv)–(v)

In assessing a claimant’s subjective symptoms, an ALJ may properly consider the “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain,” as well as “treatment, other than medication” the claimant receives or has received to relieve “pain or other symptoms.” ... Accordingly, the ALJ identified specific statements Plaintiff made regarding her symptoms that the ALJ discounted, and cited voluminous medical records documenting Plaintiff’s reports of improvement of her symptoms with treatment. (See id. at 25–26.) The Court therefore finds that the ALJ provided a specific, clear, and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence in the record, to discount Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her symptoms.

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

(SS) Scales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-18(c)(3)

The regulations state only that the ALJ will consider these factors, and not that the ALJ is required to specifically discuss each of these factors in the decision.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the pertinent symptom-evaluation factors but does not require the ALJ to discuss every factor in the opinion.

Knight v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-25(c)(3)

While as noted above, the ALJ is not required to discuss all the relevant 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) factors in his or her opinion, SSR 16-3p does require enough of an articulation to give a reviewer an understanding of the ALJ’s conclusion.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the claimant’s symptoms and limitations, but those activities need not be dispositive.

Walizer v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)(i)

In fact, a claimant’s daily activities is one of the factors that the ALJ is required to consider when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms and limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). Here, the ALJ specifically noted that none of Walizer’s activities were dispositive, but “taken together and considered in conjunction with the . . . medical evidence of record, they suggest that [Walizer] can perform work within the above parameters on a sustained and continuous basis.” Admin. Tr. at 33. While a different factfinder may have weighed Walizer’s activities of daily living differently, the ALJ did not err in considered them as one among other factors that figured into her decision.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven specified factors when evaluating subjective allegations of pain and limitation that objective medical evidence does not substantiate.

Perry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-01(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

If the claimant’s allegations of pain and limitation are “not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” Meadors, 370 F. App’x at 184. This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... Plaintiff’s subjective complaints will necessarily need to be reconsidered on remand. The ALJ discounted the complaints as inconsistent with the record. (T at 16). Notably, however, Plaintiff’s complaints are largely consistent with the assessments of her long-time treating therapist and both consultative psychiatric examiners, as set forth above. A remand, therefore, is required.

Section 404.1529(c) applies to Title II claims, not Title XVI claims.

Armijo v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-11(c)

Mr. Armijo incorrectly cites 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) which applies to Title II claims. Mr. Armijo’s claim is brought pursuant to Title XVI.

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

Hickman v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-04-11(c)(4)

As set forth above, the regulation requires the ALJ to “consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms to consider the listed categories of relevant evidence without separately analyzing all seven factors, provided the decision shows that the relevant evidence was considered.

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

To evaluate the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms,” the ALJ considers medical evidence, the claimant’s statements, other information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence in the record. See Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Other relevant evidence includes: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; treatment, other than medication, to relieve pain; any measures used to relieve pain; and “[o]ther factors concerning … functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). “The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors, but should show that he considered the relevant evidence.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s statements about symptoms, including pain, and determine how far those symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence.

David M. v. Dudek · filed 2025-04-15(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.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of reported symptoms using evidence such as treatment, response to treatment, daily activities, and inconsistencies with the record.

Ryan v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-16(c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv)-(v), (c)(4)

After discussing the objective evidence referenced supra, the ALJ considered Claimant’s conservative treatment and her response to treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v). ... The ALJ also considered Claimant’s activities of daily living. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... In regard to any inconsistences in the evidence, including conflicts between Claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence, these are additionally relevant to the subjective symptom evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Here, the ALJ provided several good reasons for finding Claimant’s reported symptoms were inconsistent with other evidence, particularly prior to her date last insured.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider inconsistencies in the evidence and the effectiveness of treatment.

Heath-Fitzgerald v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-16(c)(3)(iv), (c)(4)

The ALJ next noted that evidence of noncompliance detracted from Claimant’s subjective complaints. (Tr. 1601). For example, Claimant reported that he ate only erratically and did not do carb counting (Tr. 524). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (stating an ALJ must consider inconsistencies in the evidence); Huston, 838 F.2d at 1132 (in assessing subjective complaints, an ALJ may consider “the extensiveness of the attempts (medical or nonmedical) to obtain relief”). As the ALJ further found, evidence that medications improved Claimant’s symptoms detracted from his subjective complaints (Tr. 1601). As discussed supra, several medical records showed Claimant’s impairments responded to medication or other treatment (Tr. 524, 779, 794, 854-55, 859-60, 862-63, 1197). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (stating an ALJ must consider the effectiveness of treatment); Kelley v. Chater, 62 F.3d 335, 338 (10th Cir. 1995) (fact that impairment was well-controlled supported ALJ’s conclusion the claimant was not disabled).

In evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) and (v) permit consideration of medication effectiveness and treatment history, including conservative treatment that effectively controls the claimant’s impairments.

(SS) Felix v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-21(c)(3)(iv), (v)

An ALJ is permitted to consider evidence of conservative treatment in evaluating a claimant's subjective complaints. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding evidence of conservative treatment sufficient to discount claimant's testimony regarding severity of impairment); Warre v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), (v) (medication effectiveness and treatment history are relevant factors for evaluating a claimant's symptom testimony). ... Accordingly, the ALJ appropriately used evidence of conservative, effective treatment in discounting Plaintiff’s symptoms testimony.

An ALJ need not methodically discuss every factor governing a claimant’s subjective complaints if the ALJ acknowledges and examines the factors before discounting those complaints.

Ross v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2025-04-28(c)(3)

The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant’s subjective complaints 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 complaints. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2000). As long as the ALJ properly applies these five factors and gives several valid reasons for finding that the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints are not entirely credible, the ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to deference. ... In the present action, this Court finds the ALJ properly addressed and discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. In his opinion, the ALJ addressed the factors from Polaski and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and stated inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s testimony and the record. ... These findings are valid reasons supporting the ALJ’s credibility determination, and this Court finds the ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) allows an ALJ to consider conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the record when evaluating symptoms.

Hygham v. Bisignano · filed 2025-04-29(c)(4)

The ALJ also pointed out that although Plaintiff testified to the severity of her bowel incontinence, she denied bowel incontinence to her medical providers.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms against the objective medical and other evidence, including inconsistencies and conflicts in the record.

Lafountain v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-09(c)(4)

Under this rubric, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) gives the ALJ a framework with which to evaluate a claimant’s statements concerning his symptoms: ... We will consider your statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of your symptoms, and we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence, in reaching a conclusion as to whether you are disabled. We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your medical sources or other persons about how your symptoms affect you. ... This constitutes specific evidence the ALJ relied upon in evaluating the consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints with other evidence.

Subsections (c)(3)(iv) and (v) make medication effectiveness and treatment history relevant to evaluating a claimant’s symptom testimony, but reliance on those factors must be properly articulated and supported by the record.

(SS) Meadows v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-27(c)(3)(iv), (v)

An ALJ is permitted to consider evidence of conservative treatment in evaluating a claimant's subjective complaints. ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), (v) (medication effectiveness and treatment history are relevant factors for evaluating a claimant's symptom testimony). ... The ALJ did not properly utilize conservative or effective treatment as a basis for discounting Plaintiff's symptoms testimony. ... Effective control or conservative treatment was therefore not a proper basis for discounting Plaintiff's symptoms testimony.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptom statements to consider the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication, but an ALJ relying on conservative or effective treatment must support that assessment with adequate findings and specific evidence.

(SS) Cervantes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-28(c)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective statements, the ALJ may consider “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). ... To the extent the ALJ believed Plaintiff received conservative care for his impairments, the ALJ did not identify any additional treatment that she believed was available. Without further findings, the ALJ erred in rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective statements on these grounds. ... Likewise, the ALJ did not cite any specific evidence to support her conclusion that the treatment received was effective, or sustained. Rather, the ALJ generally cited all exhibits in the medical record, which totaled more than 100 pages. This is insufficient to constitute a “clear and convincing” reason to reject Plaintiff’s subjective statements.

Medication effectiveness and treatment history are relevant to evaluating a claimant’s symptom testimony, but routine or conservative treatment does not undermine that testimony without discussion of available more aggressive treatment options.

(SS) Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-27(c)(3)(iv), (v)

An ALJ is permitted to consider evidence of conservative treatment in evaluating a claimant's subjective complaints. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding evidence of conservative treatment sufficient to discount claimant's testimony regarding severity of impairment); Warre v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), (v) (medication effectiveness and treatment history are relevant factors for evaluating a claimant's symptom testimony). Yet, “the fact that treatment may be routine or conservative is not a basis for finding subjective symptom testimony unreliable absent discussion of the additional, more aggressive treatment options the ALJ believes are available.” ... The ALJ therefore improperly relied on conservative treatment as a basis for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. ... The ALJ therefore erred in relying on conservative treatment or effective treatment by medication as a basis for discounting Plaintiff’s symptoms testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not permit an ALJ to discount a claimant’s reported mental-health symptoms for failing to pursue continuous treatment when the lack of treatment may result from the mental-health condition or other good cause, such as homelessness.

Kiehl v. Bisignano · filed 2025-05-28(c)(3)

On this record, the ALJ’s analysis contains error. First, the ALJ is not to discount a claimant’s reported mental health symptoms—nor an examining doctor’s opinions about resulting limitations—based on the claimant’s failure to engage in continuous mental health treatment if such lack of continuous treatment may be attributable to the underlying mental health condition or other good cause, such as homelessness.

Medication effectiveness and treatment history are relevant when evaluating symptom testimony, but temporary improvement amid continuing ups and downs does not justify discounting that testimony.

(SS) Ottem v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-30(c)(3)(iv), (v)

“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling.” Warre v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), (v) (medication effectiveness and treatment history are relevant factors for evaluating a claimant's symptom testimony). However, the Ninth Circuit has cautioned that ALJs err where they rely on individual points of improvement rather than a record of sustained improvement. ... As the record indicates “ups and downs” rather than sustained improvement, effective treatment was not an appropriate basis for discounting Plaintiff’s symptoms testimony. See Attmore, 827 F.3d at 878; Jana D., 2021 WL 2826436, at *4.