20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (c)(4) make objective medical evidence central to evaluating symptom severity and allow the adjudicator to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence.

Dawisha-Sexton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-27(c)(2), (c)(4)

The most important factor in evaluating symptom severity is whether the alleged symptoms are substantiated by the objective medical evidence that is, the signs and clinical and laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5. In determining whether the alleged symptoms are substantiated, the ALJ will consider any inconsistencies between plaintiff’s testimony and the rest of the evidence, including objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); see Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding inconsistency can be based on objective medical evidence). ... The ALJ’s citation to inconsistencies between plaintiff’s testimony and plaintiff’s medical record is “sufficiently specific to permit the court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit claimant’s testimony.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958 (9th Cir. 2002).

Section 404.1529(b) permits, but does not require, an ALJ to obtain a medical or psychological expert’s opinion on whether an impairment could reasonably produce alleged symptoms.

MELI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-06-27(b)

Similarly, an ALJ is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to consult with a medical expert. Hardee v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 188 F. App’x 127, 129 (3d Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (“At the administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council level of the administrative review process, the adjudicator(s) may ask for and consider the opinion of a medical or psychological expert concerning whether your impairment(s) could reasonably be expected to produce your alleged symptoms.”) (emphasis added); Miguel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 129 F. App’x 678, 680 (3d Cir. 2005) (The regulations do not require that a medical expert testify at the claimant’s hearing.”). ... Substantial evidence supports that determination. Plaintiff therefore has not persuaded this Court that the ALJ erred in declining to exercise his discretion to order a consultative examination, obtain a medical expert, or recontact Dr. Reiter or Dr. Bergman.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) directs an ALJ evaluating symptom testimony to consider the effectiveness of medication and other treatment.

Breymann v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-09(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

It is well settled that an ALJ may discount a claimant’s symptom testimony on the grounds that symptoms improved with treatment or if the claimant failed to follow through with treatment. ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (explaining that the ALJ considers the effectiveness of medication and other treatment in evaluating the reliability of symptom testimony). Here, substantial evidence in the record supports that steroid injections provided Plaintiff with relief from his left hand symptoms, but that Plaintiff elected not to continue receiving steroid injections.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication used to alleviate those symptoms.

Kenny v. OMalley · filed 2025-07-09(c)(3)(iv)

Finally, the ALJ cited Plaintiff’s effective treatment as a basis for discounting her subjective complaints. AR 23-27. In assessing a claimant’s subjective symptoms, an ALJ may properly consider the “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” a claimant has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv); see also Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling”). Here, as previously noted, Plaintiff’s medication regimen was effective in controlling her MS symptoms and her mental health issues. She also declined further treatment and evaluation for her neck pain, suggesting that it was adequately controlled.

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

(SS) Vasquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-10(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. See, e.g., Williams v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:21-cv-01000-SAB, 2022 WL 3030270, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2022) (disagreeing with plaintiff's argument that the ALJ is required to “develop a written record concerning consideration of every factor” set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)); Torres v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-cv-00067-SAB, 2020 WL 91996, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2020) (concluding ALJ not required to specifically discuss each of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). Similarly, SSR 16-3p does not require the ALJ to discuss expressly each of these factors. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8 (The ALJ need only evaluate “the factors that are relevant to assessing the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the [claimant's] symptoms.”). As discussed, the ALJ considered at least three of the relevant factors, namely, daily activities, effectiveness of medication and treatment, and the objective medical evidence. See 20 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

An ALJ may reject a claimant’s symptom allegations based on activities of daily living only when those activities contradict the alleged functional limitations or demonstrate transferable work skills.

Hyde v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-14(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s ability to care for his pets, heat food up in the microwave, do household chores, and drive undercut his allegations of completely disabling impairments. Tr. 34. However, the ALJ failed to provide any further explanation. Tr. 34. An ALJ may reject symptom allegations that are inconsistent with a claimant’s ability to perform normal ADLs. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). There are two ways ADLs may support such rejection: (1) the ADLs contravene the claimant’s allegations of functional limitations; or (2) the ADLs “meet the threshold for transferrable work skills[.]” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007). Neither of these conditions have been met. Neither the ALJ nor the Commissioner explain how these minimal activities of daily living, especially as actually performed by Plaintiff, contradict his subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529 requires use of the Luna three-step framework to evaluate a claimant’s alleged symptoms and directs consideration of factors such as daily activities, symptom intensity and frequency, medication, treatment, and other measures used for relief.

Beck v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-07-16(c)(3)

Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna, based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2017) is still the proper standard to be used as explained in the regulations in effect on January 24, 2024, when this case was decided. ... The Commissioner has promulgated regulations suggesting relevant factors to be considered in evaluating a claimant’s allegations of symptoms which overlap and expand upon the factors stated by the court: 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).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to carefully consider a claimant’s statements about her symptoms but permits the ALJ to discount statements that conflict with the objective medical evidence or the claimant’s own statements.

GALLOWAY v. DUDEK · filed 2025-07-18(c)(4)

Although statements from the Plaintiff concerning her symptoms must be carefully considered, the ALJ is not required to credit them. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (c)(4) (“We will consider your statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of your symptoms, and we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence, in reaching a conclusion as to whether you are disabled. We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your medical sources or other persons about how your symptoms affect you.”). ... Accordingly, it was appropriate for the ALJ to discount any testimony that was contradicted by medical evidence or Plaintiff’s own statements. ... His evaluation of Plaintiff’s testimony is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s conservative course of treatment when evaluating subjective complaints.

Polo, Jordan v. O'Malley, Martin · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)(v)

Polo does not dispute that the ALJ may consider a claimant’s conservative course of treatment to discount her subjective complaints. That is established in both the regulations and the case law. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v); Baptist v. Kijakazi, 74 F.4th 437, 445 (7th Cir. 2023); Prill, 23 F.4th at 749; Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 519 (7th Cir. 2009).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medications.

Winkel v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)(iv)

When reviewing evidence other than objective medical evidence, the ALJ may consider several factors, including the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medications. Id. at *18–19; see also §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv). ... Social security regulations and rulings required the ALJ to more carefully consider the type, dosage, and effectiveness of Winkel’s medications. See §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv); see also SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, at *18-19. That seems especially critical in a case involving bipolar disorder, the defining feature of which is fluctuating symptoms.

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

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Lastly, SSR 16-3p provides that other evidence also includes the factors set forth in 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), including: (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 (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and (7) any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. Id.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of daily activities, pain characteristics, triggers, medication, functional restrictions, work history, and objective evidence, but does not require explicit discussion of every factor.

Swafford v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-03-31(c)(2)-(3)

This includes evidence pertaining to (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, intensity, and frequency of pain; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) any functional restrictions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322. “Other factors also include the claimant’s ‘relevant work history and the absence of objective medical evidence to support the complaints.’” Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 968 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gowell v. Apfel, 242 F.3d 793, 796 (8th Cir. 2001)). While the ALJ must consider the Polaski factors, she need not explicitly discuss each of them. Id.

Subsection (c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount subjective complaints when activities and other record evidence are inconsistent with the claimed limitations and the determination is adequately supported.

Twichell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-13(c)(4)

The ALJ did not ignore this evidence but found that activities Sarah undertook as part of her horse rescue organization, as well as some of her other activities and other evidence in the record, were not consistent with her subjective complaints. The court finds that the ALJ adequately supported his determination as to Sarah’s subjective complaints by citing to substantial evidence in the record.

Subsection (c)(4) is satisfied when the ALJ evaluates the claimant’s statements against objective and other evidence and explains the inconsistencies supporting the symptom determination.

McCloskey, Jr. v. Social security, Commissioner of · filed 2025-08-18(c)(4)

Thus, Judge Grand found that the ALJ complied with § 404.1529(c)(4). Indeed, it would seem the ALJ “evaluate[d] [Plaintiff’s] statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence” in the record and determined that Plaintiff’s statements were inconsistent.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows the amount of treatment a claimant receives to inform the assessment of the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Johnson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

The amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3). The ALJ focused on the fact that Plaintiff is on a minimal dose of Zoloft for anxiety and “there have been no trials of a higher dose or use of other medications to address the allegedly disabling mental symptoms overall.” AR 22. Thus, the issue is not whether Plaintiff could have been fully treated with additional medication, but that it is reasonable to expect someone with completely disabling mental health symptoms to request or have been prescribed something other than a minimal dose of Zoloft. The ALJ’s interpretation of the record is a reasonable interpretation.

Subsection (c) permits rejection of alleged additional bathroom-break limitations when objective evidence and the claimant’s statements to providers show improvement and provide substantial support for the finding.

Seals · filed 2025-11-04(c)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion. Thus, the Court must defer to the ALJ’s decision, “even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.”

Section 404.1529(c) does not require an ALJ to accept alleged breaks and absences merely because the underlying impairments are severe when identified medical evidence contradicts the asserted degree of limitation.

Brunner · filed 2026-04-02(c)

The ALJ was not required to accept Brunner’s testimony with respect to her symptoms simply because he found her impairments to be severe. Rather, the ALJ specifically identified the medical records that established Brunner was not as limited as she alleged. We find no error with the ALJ’s decision.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ who finds an impairment capable of causing alleged symptoms to evaluate and explain their intensity, persistence, limiting effects, and resulting work restrictions.

Hood · filed 2026-04-03(c)

The ALJ found that Plaintiff satisfied step one for the evaluation of her subjective complaint of incontinence but then failed to address the second step of the process of evaluating the complainant’s subjective complaints. ... The ALJ plainly erred in failing to conduct a proper step two analysis under § 404.1529 and to weigh the medical evidence from various treaters and the chart reviewers that Plaintiff suffered from incontinence that was relevant to the proper determination of her residual functional capacity.

Subsections 404.1529(c)(3)(i) and (c)(4) require consideration of all available evidence about daily activities and an explanation when an ALJ omits a substantial portion of activity evidence bearing on symptom-related work capacity.

Woods · filed 2026-05-21(c)(3)(i), (c)(4)

ALJs “will consider all of the available evidence” about a claimant’s daily activities as one factor in evaluating the extent to which her “symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish” her capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). “To be sure, there is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence in her decision.” Thomas, 916 F.3d at 312 (cleaned up). When the ALJ chooses “not to discuss what appears to be a substantial portion of the record relating to” the claimant’s symptoms and alleged limitations, however, “that decision warrants some explanation.” Id. (mental-treatment records); cf. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 99 (“An ALJ may not consider the type of a claimant’s activities without also considering the extent to which she can perform them.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies in a claimant’s testimony or between the testimony and the claimant’s conduct when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Hernandez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-27(c)(4)

“[T]he ALJ may consider inconsistencies either in the claimant’s testimony or between the testimony and the claimant’s conduct.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005) (“ALJ may engage in ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, such as . . . inconsistencies in claimant’s testimony”); accord 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) recognizes that pain and other symptoms can contribute to functional loss when medical signs or laboratory findings establish an impairment that could reasonably be expected to cause them.

Blaze v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-27(c)(3)

Pain or other symptoms may be important factors contributing to a disability claimant’s functional loss and affects a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities where relevant medical signs or laboratory findings show the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could “reasonably” be expected to cause the associated pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of an impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms and consideration of medication used to alleviate them, but an omission to discuss medication may be harmless when other factors support the finding and the claimant does not explain its significance.

Wilcoxson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-10(c)(3)(iv)

Next, Plaintiff’s subjective statements regarding pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that he is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The regulations indicate medication used to alleviate the alleged pain or other symptoms is a factor Administrative Law Judges will consider. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). The ALJ failed to comply with this rule as his analysis does not mention Plaintiff’s pain medication. However, considering the other factors the ALJ discussed and Plaintiff’s failure to explain the significance of the pain medications he utilized, it appears the omission is harmless.

Section 404.1529 requires adjudicators evaluating symptoms to consider objective medical and other evidence, and to assess specified factors rather than reject symptom statements solely for lack of objective support.

Roberto v. Saul · filed 2020-06-11(a), (c)(3)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ did not support her symptom evaluation with substantial evidence, and remand is warranted. In evaluating allegations of pain, adjudicators are directed to consider whether the symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence as well as other evidence in the record. 2016 WL 1119029, at *2; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (explaining that the agency considers both “objective medical evidence and other evidence” in evaluating whether an impairment affects activities of daily living and the ability to work). Medical test results that are not consistent with symptoms are merely one factor to be considered, and an ALJ is not free to “disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged by the individual.” 2016 WL 1119029, at *6. If the ALJ cannot make a favorable disability determination based on medical evidence alone, she must consider other evidence, e.g., statements from the individual, medical sources, and other sources including agency personnel. Id. An evaluation of the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms requires an analysis of regulatory factors including the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the symptoms; causal and aggravating factors; medication taken to alleviate symptoms, including its effectiveness and any side effects; other treatment the claimant has received; other measures used to alleviate symptoms, such as lying down or changing positions; and any other factors concerning functional limitations or restrictions due to symptoms. Id. at *7; see 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c) allows an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider relevant evidence beyond the alleged symptoms, including treatment history and other evidence bearing on their intensity and limiting effects.

Koulentiky v. Saul · filed 2020-05-29(c)

While the ALJ was entitled to consider the impact that Nicole’s alcohol and drug use had on her leaving her job, and further reasonably concluded that Nicole’s testimony that she talked to a counselor is not supported by the record, (A.R. 24); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5, 7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017), these glimmers of sound rationale are overshadowed by the ALJ’s other errors, including those discussed in the rest of this opinion.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s subjective symptoms through a two-step process and the applicable factors.

Francis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-29(c)

The Court concludes the ALJ conducted a thorough review of all of the record evidence and evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c) and SSR 16-3p. ... In this case, the ALJ set forth and properly followed the two-step process and the factors ALJs consider for evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s reported symptoms and to consider specified factors when assessing their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Kudrick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-03(a), (c)(3)

The ALJ must employ a two-step analysis to evaluate a plaintiff’s reported symptoms. ... First, the ALJ must determine whether, based on the objective medical evidence, a plaintiff’s medical impairments “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. § 404.1529(a). ... Second, if the medical evidence establishes the existence of such impairments, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to do work. See id. ... At this second step, the ALJ must consider: (1) plaintiff’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of plaintiff’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication plaintiff takes or has taken to relieve his pain or other symptoms; (5) other treatment plaintiff receives or has received to relieve his pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures that plaintiff takes or has taken to relieve his pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning plaintiff’s functional limitations and restrictions due to his pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529 provides that a claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms alone cannot establish disability; medical signs and laboratory findings must show an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce them, and an ALJ may consider other relevant factors and inconsistencies when assessing their severity.

Norris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-05(a), (c)(3), (c)(4)

Plaintiff's subjective statements about pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that she is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings that show the existence of medical impairments that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain and other symptoms she has alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... Because the reported pain and other symptoms suggested impairments of greater severity than can be shown by objective medical evidence, the ALJ properly considered other information and factors that may be relevant to the degree of pain alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... The ALJ properly considered whether there were any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there were conflicts between Plaintiff’s testimony and the rest of the evidence (Id.). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) and 416.929(c)(4). ... Additionally, the ALJ considered the medications used to alleviate the alleged pain and other symptoms (Id.).

Section 404.1529 requires considering all symptoms, including pain, and assessing whether they are consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

RAFINE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-06-10

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (“In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. ...”).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ first to find a medically demonstrable impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms and then to assess their intensity, persistence, and functional effects against the entire case record, including the regulatory factors.

Kshir v. Saul · filed 2020-06-11(b), (c), (c)(3)

First, symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, will only be considered to affect a claimant’s ability to perform work activities if such symptoms result from an underlying physical or mental impairment that has been demonstrated to exist by medical signs or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16–3p. During the second step of this credibility assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated based on the ALJ’s evaluation of the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p.

Section 404.1529(c) directs consideration of daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication and other treatment, relief measures, and other functional-limitations evidence when assessing the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Sauve v. Saul · filed 2020-06-10(c)

Factors to be considered in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms include: 1) daily activities; 2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; 3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication 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; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing alleged symptoms.

Simons v. Saul · filed 2020-06-12(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing her alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... It was not error to list these household tasks, along with other medical opinions, to evaluate Simons’s subjective allegations regarding the debilitating effect of her pain.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s subjective symptoms and consider specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and functional limitations.

Poole v. Saul · filed 2020-05-22(b), (c), (c)(3)

The Regulations set forth a two-step process that an ALJ must follow in evaluating a plaintiff’s subjective complaints. ... The ALJ should consider factors relevant to plaintiff’s symptoms, such as pain, including: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the “location, duration, frequency, and intensity” of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) any precipitating or aggravating factors; (4) the “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” taken by claimant to alleviate the pain or symptoms; (5) “treatment, other than medication,” that plaintiff has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any other measures plaintiff has used to relieve symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning plaintiff’s “functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... The ALJ adequately considered plaintiff’s complaints of pain. Not only did the ALJ reference plaintiff’s back and knee pain throughout her decision, see Tr. 824-25, but the ALJ also appears to have credited some of those complaints by limiting plaintiff to sedentary work and acknowledging plaintiff’s need for a cane with prolonged ambulation. See Tr. 823.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine that symptoms arise from a medically demonstrated impairment and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the entire case record.

Sincavage v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-29(b), (c), (c)(3)

First, symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, will only be considered to affect a claimant's ability to perform work activities if such symptoms result from an underlying physical or mental impairment that has been demonstrated to exist by medical signs or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16–3p. During the second step of this credibility assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence or functionally limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated based on the ALJ's evaluation of the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s subjective symptoms and consider specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and functional limitations.

Wascholl v. Saul · filed 2020-06-03(b), (c), (c)(3)

The Regulations set forth a two-step process that an ALJ must follow in evaluating a plaintiff’s subjective complaints. First, the ALJ must determine whether the record demonstrates that plaintiff possesses a “medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce [plaintiff’s] symptoms, such as pain.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(b), 416.929(b). Second, the ALJ must assess the credibility of plaintiff’s complaints regarding “the intensity and persistence of [plaintiff’s] symptoms” to “determine how [the] symptoms limit [plaintiff’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c), 416.929(c); see also SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304 (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017) (describing two-step process used to evaluate a claimant’s subjective symptoms).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ first to determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using all available evidence.

Rodriguez Jr v. Saul · filed 2020-06-08(a), (c)(1)

The Social Security regulations set forth a two-step procedure for evaluating a claimant’s statements about the symptoms—that is, the claimant’s subjective complaints—allegedly caused by his impairments. ... The ALJ begins by deciding whether a medically determinable impairment “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p at *3. If so, the ALJ then “evaluate[s] the intensity and persistence” of the claimant’s symptoms and determines how they limit the claimant’s “capacity for work.” § 404.1529(c)(1). In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ looks to “all of the available evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements from you, your treating and nontreating source, or other persons about how your symptoms affect you.” Id.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence as a relevant factor in assessing the severity and limiting effects of alleged symptoms, and to accept alleged limitations only insofar as they are reasonably consistent with objective and other evidence.

(SS) Blanchard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-08(c)(2), (c)(4)

The law does not require an ALJ simply to ignore inconsistencies between objective medical evidence and a claimant’s testimony. “While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); SSR 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). As part of the analysis of the record as a whole, an ALJ properly considers whether the objective medical evidence supports or is consistent with a claimant’s pain testimony. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.1529(c)(4) (symptoms are determined to diminish residual functional capacity only to the extent that the alleged functional limitations and restrictions “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence”).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s statements about symptoms and evaluate them with objective medical evidence and specified factors such as daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, and treatment.

Hartman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-10(a), (c)(3)

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). Subjective allegations of disabling symptoms alone cannot support a finding of disability. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2. The ALJ must weigh the claimant’s subjective complaints, the relevant objective medical evidence, and any other evidence of the following factors: (1) The individual’s daily activities; (2) Location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) Type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; (5) Treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) Other measures taken to relieve pain or other symptoms; (7) Other factors concerning functional limitations due to pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... In general, the ALJ focused on Plaintiff’s ability to maintain part time work as a professor teaching an accounting class to dismiss her subjective symptoms. As discussed above, the ALJ made several errors in discussing Plaintiff’s ability to maintain part time work and in her ability to supposedly renovate her home. These errors require remand in the subjective symptom discussion in the same way that they require remand elsewhere. The ALJ ignored the accommodations afforded to Plaintiff in her part time work and improperly speculated in finding that Plaintiff could renovate her home.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate subjective symptoms in a two-step process, considering objective medical evidence and factors such as daily activities, pain characteristics, treatment, and medication side effects.

Liu v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-26(a), (c)(3)

The ALJ must first confirm that objective medical evidence of the underlying condition exists, and then determine whether that condition could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain, considering other evidence, including: (1) daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side-effect of any medication; (5) treatment, other than medication received; (6) any means used to ... relieve pain; and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p. ... In this case, the ALJ set forth and followed the two-part standard described above. He summarized Plaintiff’s allegations, his hearing testimony and his Function Report, his daily activities, the objective medical evidence, his treatment history, and the opinion evidence, and found Plaintiff capable of performing a reduced range of work at all exertional levels. (Tr. 25-28.)

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms to consider daily activities, the frequency of pain, and the claimant’s response to treatment.

Bratton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-29(c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(ii), (c)(3)(iv)

An ALJ may properly consider the claimant’s daily activities in evaluating testimony regarding subjective pain. See, e.g., Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i) (claimant’s daily activities relevant to evaluating symptoms). ... In assessing a claimant’s subjective symptoms, an ALJ may properly consider the frequency of her pain as well as whether the claimant had a “fair response” to treatment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(ii), (iv); 416.929(c)(3)(ii), (iv); see also Odle v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 439, 440 (9th Cir. 1983).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then assess the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effect using the specified factors.

Peralta v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-01(c)(1), (c)(3)

The applicable regulation governing evaluation of subjective complaints is 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Pursuant to the first step of SSR 16-3p and this regulation, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. For the second step, the ALJ evaluates the “intensity and persistence” of the claimant’s symptoms and determines the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1), (c)(3); SSR 16-3p. Looking at the ALJ’s decision, it is apparent the ALJ followed this regulatory framework in determining Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that statements about pain or other symptoms alone do not establish disability and requires medical signs and laboratory findings showing an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce them.

Barnhouse v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-02(a)

... A claimant's statement that she is experiencing pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that she is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain or other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ, after finding a medically determinable impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms, to evaluate their intensity and persistence and consider evidence about how they affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-11(c)(1)-(3)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including, but not limited to, the claimant’s history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work. Id. at § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3). ... The Court finds that the reasons articulated by the ALJ in support of his credibility determination are supported by substantial evidence, including the medical evidence of record concerning the severity of Claimant’s impairments and Claimant’s statements concerning her daily activities, such as going shopping, going out alone, and taking care of her daughter. ... Thus, the undersigned finds that the ALJ articulated good cause in finding Claimant’s testimony not entirely credible and that the ALJ’s reasons are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider the absence of hospitalization or emergency treatment when evaluating subjective symptoms, although neither is required.

Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-11(c)(2-3)

Although there is no requirement that the claimant be hospitalized or seen on an emergency basis, it is one of the considerations for subjective symptom testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2-3); Spaulding v. Astrue, 702 F. Supp. 2d 983, 998 (N.D. Ill. 2010). This evidence, combined with the other evidence of record, helps build the logical bridge from the evidence to the ALJ’s conclusion.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s subjective symptoms, including determining whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to cause them.

Sorian v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-28(b)

The determination of whether or not to accept a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms requires a two-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281 (citations omitted). First, the ALJ must determine whether or not there is a medically determinable impairment that reasonably could be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281-82.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate a claimant's symptoms: determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, then assess their intensity, persistence, and work-related limiting effects against objective and other evidence, including the listed symptom factors.

Santos-Pagan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-26(a), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

As of March 28, 2016, the ALJ must follow a revised two-step analysis in reviewing a claimant’s subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017) (correcting terminology relating to applicable date); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1237954 (Mar. 24, 2016) (correcting effective date to March 28, 2016). ... The first step requires the ALJ to determine whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment or impairments that reasonably could produce the individual’s pain or other related symptoms. ... If the underlying impairment reasonably could be expected to produce the individual’s pain, then the second part of the analysis requires the ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s “symptoms such as pain and determine the extent to which an individual’s symptoms limit his or her ability to perform work related activities.” Jd. at *4. ... The ALJ’s step-two evaluation must first consider the consistency between a claimant’s statements and the objective medical evidence. Id. at *5. ... Based on the degree of consistency between a claimant’s statements and the evidence of record, the ALJ should find either a higher or lower likelihood that the claimant can perform work-related activities. /d. at *8. ... see § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii) (listing other types of evidence that the Commissioner should consider when analyzing a claimant’s subjective complaints, including: activities of daily living; location, duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medications; other treatments received; other measures used to alleviate symptoms; and, other relevant factors).

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical signs or laboratory findings to establish a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce symptoms such as pain or fatigue before those symptoms can be found to affect a claimant’s ability to work.

Durbin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-27(b)

Nevertheless, the pertinent regulations make it clear that certain symptoms, including pain and fatigue, will not be found to affect a claimant’s ability to work unless medical signs or laboratory findings show the presence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably expected to produce those symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an adjudicator evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider pain and assess whether the symptoms are consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

MORRIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-05-28

When making the RFC determination, the ALJ is required to: [C]consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. By objective medical evidence, we mean medical signs and laboratory findings . . . . By other evidence, we mean . . . statements or reports from you, your treating or nontreating source, and others about your medical history, diagnosis, prescribed treatment, daily activities, efforts to work, and any other evidence showing how your impairment(s) and any related symptoms affect your ability to work. . . . 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to adequately consider the listed factors when evaluating a claimant's symptoms, including symptoms associated with fibromyalgia.

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-22(c)(3)

The ALJ did not adequately consider the criteria specified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) as it relates to her fibromyalgia impairment, and failed to mention or follow SSR 12-2p which sets forth the criteria for evaluating fibromyalgia.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) and (4) allow an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider daily activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication effects, and other functional limitations and restrictions.

Raburn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-05-27(c)(3), (4)

An ALJ rendering findings regarding a claimant’s subjective symptoms may consider a variety of factors, including: the claimant’s daily activities; symptom location, duration, frequency, and intensity; precipitating and aggravating factors; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication taken to alleviate the symptoms; and other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), (4).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment and medication regimen when evaluating symptom testimony.

Leonard J. G. v. Saul Andrew, Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-27(c)(3)(iv), (v)

The regulations authorize ALJs to what treatment other than medication claimants have received for their pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), (v) (consideration of treatment and medication regimen relevant to evaluating symptom testimony); Yanez v. Astrue, 252 F. App’x 792, 794 (9th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (discounting testimony where claimant “put off scheduling left-knee surgery despite his claims of debilitating pain”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs the ALJ to evaluate symptom severity using the entire record and relevant factors such as daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication effects, treatment history, and measures used for relief.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-05(c)(3)

The Social Security Administration uses a two-step process for evaluating an individual’s symptoms. First, the ALJ must determine whether an individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms. Id. at *3. Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the individual’s symptoms and determine the extent to which the individual’s symptoms limit her ability to perform work-related activities. Id. at *4. To do this, the ALJ must examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; the individual’s relevant statements; statements and other information provided by medical sources and others; and any other relevant evidence in the record. Id. at *4-5. In addition to all of the evidence, the ALJ should consider multiple factors: ... 7. Any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. ... Id. at *7-8; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... In the present case, ALJ Barnes followed these steps. ... This was not improper because Plaintiff’s daily activities are relevant to the ALJ’s evaluation of his symptom severity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); ... In sum, ALJ Barnes evaluated Plaintiff’s symptom severity as set for in the Regulations and Social Security Ruling 16-3p. He reasonably weighed the evidence and concluded Plaintiff is not under a disability. Substantial evidence therefore supports his conclusions.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or effects on work solely because available objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Elmir S. Sanchez Lopez v. Saul · filed 2020-06-08(c)(2)

However, as stated above, the lack of objective medical evidence supporting Plaintiff’s allegations about his diabetic neuropathy cannot provide the sole basis for rejecting his statements about the severity of his symptoms and limitations. SSR 16-3p; see also Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 679; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (“we will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes the effectiveness of treatment a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Simpson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-08(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptoms, but minimal daily activities alone cannot establish that disabling pain complaints are incredible.

Borden v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-01(c)(3)(i)

However, plaintiff is correct in that, under Thompson, minimal daily activities, standing alone, are not sufficiently substantial evidence to find that a plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain are incredible. “[A]n ALJ may not rely on the performance of minimal daily activities alone as substantial evidence that a claimant does not suffer disabling pain,” but may consider daily activities as one of many factors considered in the ALJ’s credibility determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms to consider specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Cortes v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-29(c)(3)

As to a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the regulations require an ALJ to consider several factors, including: (1) daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken; (5) treatment, other than medication, to relieve pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7 (S.S.A. Mar. 16, 2016) (“In addition to using all of the evidence to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms, we will also use the factors set forth in 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(3).”). ... While the ALJ did recite evidence regarding Cortes’s symptoms and the medications and treatments she used to manage or relieve those symptoms, missing from the ALJ’s decision is any synthesis or analysis of that evidence or Cortes’s activities of daily living that enables the Court to meaningfully review the ALJ’s cursory determination that Cortes’s subjective complaints were not fully supported.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to compare a claimant’s daily activities with alleged limitations when assessing the consistency of subjective symptom allegations, but does not permit equating limited daily activities with ability to work full time.

Barr v. Saul · filed 2020-06-08(c)(3)(i)

While an ALJ may compare a claimant’s daily activities against her alleged limitations to assess the consistency of those allegations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Alvarado v. Colvin, 836 F.3d 744, 750 (7th Cir. 2016), the ALJ in the last two sentences of his analysis directly equated Plaintiff’s ability to perform daily activities with an ability to work full time, and that comparison is impermissible.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes the effectiveness of medication or treatment relevant to determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

(SS) Rodriguez v. Commissioner of the Social Security · filed 2020-05-26(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of the effectiveness of treatment when determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Larimer v. Saul · filed 2020-05-27(c)(3)

Second, the ALJ found treatment was effective. Tr. 22-23. The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to carefully consider seven factors, including the claimant's daily activities and the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms, when evaluating subjective symptom testimony.

Provost v. Saul · filed 2020-05-28(c)(3)

Generally speaking, this requires the ALJ to "carefully consider" seven factors, including a claimant's ability to perform "daily activities" and the "location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [their] pain or other symptoms."

Under subsections 404.1529(a)-(b), subjective complaints alone do not establish disability; objective signs or laboratory findings must first establish an impairment reasonably capable of producing the symptoms before their work-related effects are assessed.

ZACCARIA · filed 2026-03-31(a)-(b)

Plaintiff’s subjective complaints alone cannot establish disability; rather, the regulations’ two-step process requires: first, (a) objective clinical signs and laboratory findings demonstrating the existence of an MDI that (b) could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, and then second, as to that MDI, the extent to which the claimant’s statements of work-related impairment are medically supported. See supra n. 8; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a, b), 416.929(a, b).

Section 404.1529's two-step framework requires objective evidence of an impairment capable of producing symptoms at step one, but allows exclusive reliance on subjective evidence at step two and requires consideration of the entire record when objective evidence does not substantiate alleged severity.

Gene B. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-03-31

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, “ALJ’s must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529[8] and SSR 16-3p.” Arakas v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). ... At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled. ... Thus, the ALJ must consider the entire case record and may not “disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them.

Subsection 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of all medical and nonmedical evidence about symptom effects and permits an ALJ to weigh documented conservative treatment when assessing intensity and persistence without identifying a more aggressive treatment alternative.

Bisignano · filed 2026-03-31(c)(1)

To the extent Plaintiff is arguing, without citation, that the ALJ was obligated to identify a more aggressive form of treatment, the Court disagrees. By citing and discussing medical treatment records, the ALJ was rendering his decision on the record before him, not “play[ing] doctor and [drawing] his own conclusion regarding the appropriate level of treatment.” Jones, 2015 WL 7568366, at *7. The ALJ was simply weighing the evidence in evaluating the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff’s symptoms to determine the extent to which Plaintiff’s symptoms limited his ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”).

Subsection 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant's symptom statements but does not require crediting them when their asserted severity conflicts with objective imaging and examination findings.

Jones · filed 2026-03-31(a)

Again, the ALJ adequately discussed Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms of chronic pain and numbness, tingling and sensitivity in her hands. (Id. at 22 (noting that Plaintiff “testified to chronic pain in her neck, back, lower back, left lower extremity, both knees, hip area, arms, and hands along with sensitivity, weakness, and difficulty touching things”)); see also Chandler, 667 F.3d at 359 (noting that ALJ must consider claimant’s statements regarding symptoms but “is not required to credit them” (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a))). But the ALJ explained that the self-reported severity of symptoms was not consistent with “objective imaging and exam findings” during the relevant timeframe. (Tr. at 23).

Subsections 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii) require consideration of nonobjective information, including medication, treatment, and other relief measures, and permit symptom allegations to be discounted for improvement, conservative care, or unexplained failure to pursue recommended treatment.

Whitley · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The regulations recognize that symptoms may suggest a greater severity of impairment than may be shown through objective evidence and therefore also require the ALJ to consider other information in the record, including medical and nonmedical sources, and to consider factors including the usage of treatment, medications, and other measures to relieve symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii). Improvement of symptoms with medication or treatment, and the use of conservative treatment or the lack of treatment can be bases for discrediting symptom allegations.

At the second step under section 404.1529(c), fibromyalgia claimants may rely exclusively on subjective evidence, and normal objective findings may not be used—even as one factor—to discount symptom severity because fibromyalgia does not produce such evidence.

CRUMPLER · filed 2026-03-31(c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). ... ALJs may not tely on objective medical evidence (or the lack thereof)—even as just one of multiple factors—to discount a claimant’s subjective complaints tegatding symptoms of fibromyalgia or some other disease that does not ptoduce such evidence. Objective indicators such as normal clinical and laboratory results simply have no relevance to the severity, persistence, ot limiting effects of a claimant’s fibromyalgia, based on the current medical understanding of the disease.

Subsection 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of its symptom factors, but an ALJ need not provide a formal factor-by-factor recitation if the decision identifies the specific evidence used to evaluate the claimant's statements.

Burger · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

As part of the symptom analysis, the ALJ should consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), including: (i) daily activities; (ii) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (iii) precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken; (v) treatment other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; (vi) any other measures used by the claimant to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (vii) any other factors concerning functional limitations. Id. at *7-*8. ... “[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).

Subsection 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to examine inconsistencies and conflicts between symptom statements and the rest of the evidence, with the resulting consistency findings affirmatively linked to substantial evidence.

Pester · filed 2026-03-31(c)(4)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider a claimant’s “statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of [the claimant’s symptoms,” taking into account “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... An ALJ’s findings as to consistency “should be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence and not just a conclusion in the guise of findings.” Id.

Subsection 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom severity, but mental-health improvement must be sustained rather than selected from isolated points in a waxing-and-waning course.

Grover · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

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); 416.929(c)(3); 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.”); Warre v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”). In cases involving mental health impairments, the Ninth Circuit emphasizes that symptoms commonly “wax and wane in the course of treatment,” and that “[c]ycles of improvement and debilitating symptoms are a common occurrence, [such that] it is error for an ALJ to pick out a few isolated instances of improvement over a period of months or years and to treat them as a basis for concluding a claimant is capable of working.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1017.

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms using objective and other evidence, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Malphrus v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-22(c)

A claimant’s statements about intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, which are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, are less likely to reduce his capacity to perform work related activities. SSR 16-3p, at *7; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). An individual’s symptoms are evaluated based on consideration of objective medical evidence, an individual’s statements directly to the Administration, or to medical sources or other sources, and the following factors: 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 (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and 7. Any other factors concerning an individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, at *7; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider daily activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures, and other functional limitations.

(SS)Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-27(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms which the ALJ will consider include: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on the back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). Plaintiff's contention that the ALJ did not consider these factors is not supported by the record. The ALJ expressly stated that in determining Plaintiff’s RFC, she considered “all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms could reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p.” AR 19. Moreover, as discussed above, the ALJ expressly addressed Plaintiff’s daily activities, including his hearing testimony (AR 19, 20), treatment (AR 20-21), medications (AR 20-21), and other measures used to relieve pain (AR 21). The ALJ also took into account Plaintiff’s testimony regarding pain and any precipitating or aggravating factors. AR 19-20.

Section 404.1529 permits an adjudicator to consider consistency with objective medical evidence, daily activities, medication, treatment, and pain-relief measures when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, but objective evidence alone cannot be the sole basis for rejecting symptom statements.

Dewey v. Saul · filed 2020-10-30(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(3)(iv)-(vi)

The ALJ properly considered how consistent Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements were with this objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). This could not be the ALJ’s sole reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s statements about his symptoms, but it was a factor that the ALJ was permitted to consider. ... An ALJ is permitted to consider daily living activities in his credibility analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (daily activities are a relevant factor which will be considered in evaluating symptoms); ... Although Plaintiff takes issue with this, it was proper for the ALJ to have considered daily living activities in his credibility analysis. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 681. ... An ALJ may properly consider Plaintiff’s treatment history in analyzing his asserted symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv),(v),(vi) (factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms, such as pain, which the Commissioner will consider include medication taken to alleviate symptoms; treatment received for pain; and measures used to relieve pain); ... Indeed, it was proper for the ALJ to have considered Plaintiff’s improvement with treatment as a basis for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. See Warre v. Comm’r, 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to establish a medically determinable impairment that could produce the alleged symptoms, then to evaluate the symptoms’ intensity and persistence by considering factors such as daily activities, pain, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, and to give specific reasons for the finding.

Judon v. Saul · filed 2020-11-03(b), (c)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s own statements about his impairments and any pain he experiences. Social Security Regulation 16-3p establishes a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s subjective statements. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (October 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, an ALJ “must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s symptoms, such as pain.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Then, once an underlying “physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s symptoms is established,” an ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities….” Id. When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, “an ALJ must consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, h[is] level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, and justify the finding with specific reasons.” Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 562 (7th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Treatment gaps and improvement do not support discounting symptom testimony when the full record shows continuing severe limitations and improvement is qualified.

Lee v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-30(c)(3)

A claimant’s course of treatment is a valid consideration for assessing the persuasiveness of a claimant’s testimony. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3). ... On this record, Plaintiff’s alleged treatment gaps and improvement do not constitute substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3).

The regulation treats the effectiveness of medication and treatment as relevant to evaluating a claimant's alleged symptoms, but a speculative possibility of improvement does not establish actual improvement.

Mitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-22(c)(3)(iv)

As for the ALJ’s third reason, Dr. Grattan stated that “I anticipate that all of these conditions could improve with optimal treatment over the next 12 months.” AR 491 (emphasis added). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (the effectiveness of medication and treatment are relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability). A speculative statement that an individual’s impairments are potentially susceptible to treatment is different from a finding that those impairments actually improved following treatment, and Dr. Grattan’s statement is not inconsistent with her opinion.

Normal mental-status findings do not establish sustained improvement when the ALJ fails to explain why they outweigh abnormal findings showing that mental symptoms waxed and waned.

Heard · filed 2025-10-14(c)(2)-(3)

This is not a medical record that reflects sustained, significant mental-health improvement. Although the medical record does contain “normal” mental-health statuses in other treatment records, the ALJ failed to clearly explain why such normal findings overrode the waxing ... abnormal findings noted in other treatment records.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires the agency to seek objective medical evidence and consider it when deciding whether a claimant is disabled.

(SS) Madrid v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-11(c)(2)

The use of medical record evidence is certainly within the ALJ’s purview when evaluating a claimant’s symptom testimony, and the undersigned takes no issue with this part of her analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“We must always attempt to obtain objective medical evidence and, when it is obtained, we will consider it in reaching a conclusion as to whether you are disabled.”).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then assess their consistency with objective and other evidence; objective evidence alone is insufficient, but inconsistencies and conflicts may support discounting symptom statements.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-18(a), (b), (c)(2), (c)(4)

To evaluate a claimant’s assertion of a limitation, the ALJ must engage in a two-step process: At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. ... If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider “the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence” of record. ... The regulations also provide that the SSA “will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [a claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” ... A conservative treatment regimen, when combined with other similarly conflicting evidence in the record, is substantial evidence sufficient to discount a claimant’s statements about the severity of their symptoms. ... Accordingly, the ALJ properly considered Thomas’s treatment history, as one of multiple factors, in reaching the decision to discount Thomas’s statements about the severity of her symptoms.

Subsection (b) requires development of evidence concerning a possible medically determinable mental impairment when the record contains information suggesting such an impairment.

Chalfant v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21(b)

However, the ALJ should have probed deeper because when there is “information to suggest” that Plaintiff had a mental health impairment, the ALJ ... should have “developed the evidence regarding the possibility of a medically determinable mental impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b).

Section 404.1529 treats pain as a symptom of a medical impairment that must be evaluated, including in combination with other impairments, when determining disability.

Sudhop v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1984-03-12

“Plaintiff’s pain constitutes a symptom of a medical impairment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1983), and in light of Dr. Gor-by’s findings, plaintiff suffers from medical conditions that could reasonably be expected to produce pain. Accordingly, plaintiff’s pain should have been evaluated as a symptom of a medical impairment to see if it was equivalent, in combination with other impairments, to any listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1526(a), 404.1528(a), and 404.1529 (1983).”

Under section 404.1529(b), pain is a symptom rather than an impairment, and symptoms alone cannot establish disability.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(b)

As for plaintiff’s chronic hand, neck, and back pain, pain is a symptom, not an impairment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), and “[n]o symptom or combination of symptoms can be the basis for a finding of disability,” SSR 96-4p, 1996 WL 374187.

Section 404.1529 treats pain as a symptom that must arise from a medically determinable impairment, and pain statements alone do not establish disability.

Sundown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-09(a)

However, under the regulations, pain, in and of itself, is not a medically determinable impairment, rather, it is considered a symptom that must be caused by such an impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929. Indeed, plaintiff’s statements about her pain or other symptoms do not solely establish disability. Id.

Section 404.1529 generally treats pain as a symptom rather than as a severe impairment.

Torres v. Social Security Admin. · filed 2024-12-23

As an initial matter, pain itself is generally not categorized as a severe impairment—instead, it is categorized as a symptom. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; see also Rodriguez v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 118 F.4th 1302, 1316 (11th Cir. 2024) (categorizing pain as a symptom, not an impairment); Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (same); Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 729 (11th Cir. 1983) (same).

Section 404.1529(b) treats pain as a symptom that affects basic work activities only when medical signs or laboratory findings establish a medically determinable impairment.

Downs v. Saul · filed 2021-02-08(b)

ALJ Kennedy did not need to evaluate whether Downs’s new evidence of pain showed a “severe medically determinable . . . impairment,” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii), in light of his conclusion that pain is a symptom rather than a medically determinable impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (“Your symptoms, such as pain . . . , will not be found to affect your ability to do basic work activities unless medical signs or laboratory findings show that a medically determinable impairment(s) is present.”).

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to reassess symptom statements when the medical opinion informing that assessment must be reconsidered on remand.

Denison v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-08(c)

The evaluation of a claimant’s symptom statements and their resulting limitations relies, in part, on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); S.S.R. 16-3p. Therefore, in light of the case being remanded for the ALJ to readdress the medical source opinion from Dr. Hixon, a new assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements will be necessary.

Because § 404.1529(c)’s symptom evaluation relies in part on the assessment of medical evidence, the ALJ must reassess symptom statements when a remand requires reanalysis of medical opinions.

Baker v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-03(c)

The evaluation of a claimant’s symptom statements and their resulting limitations relies, in part, on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); S.S.R. 16-3p. Therefore, in light of the case being remanded for the ALJ to readdress the medical opinions addressed above, a new assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements will be necessary.

When reconsideration of medical evidence on remand may affect the symptom assessment, Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ also to reconsider the claimant’s testimony and reassess the sequential evaluation.

Marshall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-14(c)

Since the ALJ’s reconsideration of the medical evidence may impact her assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony, the ALJ must also reconsider Plaintiff’s testimony on remand, and reassess the sequential evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

When remand requires reevaluation of medical evidence, Section 404.1529(c) may require reassessment of symptom testimony dependent on that evidence.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-07(c)

A revaluation of the medical record could impact the evaluation of plaintiff’s testimony. Plaintiff’s credibility should be assessed anew following remand of this matter.

When medical evidence must be reviewed anew on remand, section 404.1529(c) also requires reassessment of claimant credibility and lay-witness evidence because the credibility determination depends in part on the medical evidence.

Bechtold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-18(c)

However, the Court already has concluded that the ALJ committed harmful error and the medical evidence should be reviewed anew, see supra, Sections II A (1), (2), above. In addition, a determination of a claimant’s credibility relies in part on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Therefore, plaintiff’s credibility, lay witness evidence, and the additional issues raised by plaintiff, should be assessed anew on remand.

Section 404.1529(c) makes evaluation of subjective complaints depend in part on the medical-evidence assessment, so subjective complaints must be reassessed when material medical evidence is to be reviewed anew on remand.

Shannon-Hartzog v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-14(c)

In addition, a determination of a claimant’s credibility relies in part on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Therefore, plaintiff’s credibility should be assessed anew following remand of this matter.

Section 404.1529(c) makes symptom evaluation depend in part on the medical-evidence assessment, so subjective complaints should be reassessed when medical evidence is to be reviewed anew on remand.

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

In addition, a determination of a claimant’s credibility relies in part on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Therefore, plaintiff’s credibility should be assessed anew following remand of this matter.

Section 404.1529(b) considers symptoms as limits on work only when medical signs or laboratory findings establish an underlying impairment that could produce them.

Koletar v. Saul · filed 2022-08-23(b)

First, symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, will only be considered to affect a claimant's ability to perform work activities if such symptoms result from an underlying physical or mental impairment that has been demonstrated to exist by medical signs or laboratory findings.

Section 404.1529 requires medically acceptable clinical or laboratory evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, but does not require objective evidence of the pain itself.

Autry R. HAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1985-06-04

We agree with the Secretary’s interpretation, as stated in her supplemental brief, that the record must document, by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, the existence of a medical impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms of which claimant complains. There need not be objective evidence of the pain itself.

Section 404.1529 requires disabling symptoms such as pain to be supported by a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to produce them.

Howard v. Heckler · filed 1984-09-17

Without medical evidence of a condition reasonably expected to cause pain, a claim of disabling pain must be discounted.

At section 404.1529(b)’s first step, medical evidence need not corroborate the alleged symptoms’ severity; it need only establish an impairment reasonably expected to cause some degree of those symptoms.

Bradshaw v. Saul · filed 2021-10-19(b)

“At this step, the medical evidence need not corroborate the severity of the alleged symptoms; the medical evidence need only establish that the impairment could reasonably be expected to cause some degree of the alleged symptoms.”

A claimant relying on pain or other symptoms must show an underlying medical condition and either objective confirmation of symptom severity or a condition reasonably expected to produce the claimed symptoms.

Shawn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-14(a)

When a claimant reports subjective testimony of pain or other symptoms, the claimant must satisfy “two parts of a three-part test showing: (1) evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain [or other symptom]; or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain [or symptom].” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

A claimant’s subjective complaint of pain, standing alone, is insufficient to establish disability.

Jerry D. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1986-08-22

Moreover, a claimant’s subjective complaint of pain is by itself insufficient to establish disability.

Section 404.1529 permits the Secretary to reject a claimant's pain testimony when objective medical findings do not show a condition reasonably expected to produce the claimed pain.

James L. BATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis J. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appel · filed 1990-01-23

The Secretary is not required to believe a claimant's pain testimony, and the Secretary may decide to disregard such testimony entirely whenever the claimant fails to submit objective medical findings that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimed pain. Taylor v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 872, 876 (9th Cir.1985); 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1529 (1988); Social Security Ruling 88-13.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of alleged disabling pain: establish an underlying medical condition, then determine whether objective evidence confirms the pain's severity or the condition could reasonably be expected to produce it.

Crawford v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1993-06-11

The standard to be applied in considering a claimant's allegations of disabling pain is set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1991) and Duncan v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847 (6th Cir.1986). ... First, it must be determined "whether there is objective medical evidence of an underlying medical condition." Duncan, 801 F.2d at 853. Once this first prong has been met, it must then be determined: "(1) whether objective medical evidence confirms the severity of the alleged [disabling 1 pain arising from the condition, or (2) whether the objectively established medical condition is of such a severity that it can reasonably be expected to produce the alleged disabling pain." Id.

Section 404.1529(d) requires the effects of a claimant's pain to be considered at each step of the sequential evaluation after a medically determinable impairment is recognized.

Ball v. Shalala, Secretary · filed 1995-04-24(d)

Further, upon the recognition of a medical impairment, the effects of a claimant's pain must be considered at each step of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d).

The section requires the Secretary to consider a claimant’s pain and other symptoms when supported by medical signs and findings, and to assess them against a medically determinable impairment capable of producing them.

Janice SCIVALLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appe · filed 1992-05-20

The Secretary must consider a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain if supported by medical signs and findings. ... At no point did the AU or the Appeals Council find that Ms. Scivally’s severe impairment, severe degenerative alteration of the spine, could not be reasonably expected to produce pain. ... The Secretary’s failure to consider Ms. Scivally’s complaints of pain is error.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to first determine whether a claimant's alleged pain is substantiated by objective medical evidence and, if it is not, to make detailed inquiries into the pain and its effects.

Roy W. LUNA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Defenda · filed 1994-04-20

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, the ALJ must first determine whether the pain alleged is substantiated by objective medical evidence. ... If the allegation of pain is not supported by the objective medical evidence in the file and the claimant indicates that pain is a significant factor of his or her alleged inability to work, then the ALJ must obtain detailed descriptions of claimant’s daily activities by directing specific inquiries about the pain and its effects to the claimant.

Section 404.1529 requires an adjudicator evaluating pain complaints to consider relevant medical evidence and specified factors such as daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, treatment, and functional limitations.

Adie v. SSA · filed 1996-08-12(2), (c)(3)

When evaluating such allegations, the ALJ should consider the medical evidence on the record, such as any evidence of reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, or motor disruption. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(2). The ALJ, however, failed to do so. ... Considerations capable of substantiating subjective complaints of pain include evidence of (1) the claimant's daily activities; ... (6) any other factors relating to claimant's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (3); Avery, supra, 797 F.2d at 23. ... Although the ALJ considers some of the Avery factors in his decision to not fully credit plaintiff's reports of pain, he does not provide the "full description" reguired.

Section 404.1529 requires medical findings of an underlying condition reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms and consideration of daily activities and the pain’s location, duration, frequency, and intensity when the symptoms indicate greater severity than the medical evidence establishes.

Saviano v. Chater · filed 1997-03-05(b), (e)(3)

The plaintiff must bolster complaints of pain by demonstrating, through medical findings, that an underlying condition does exist and that it would be reasonably expected to produce the symptomatology alleged. ... If the claimant’s symptoms indicate a more serious problem than is established by the medical evidence, other factors such as the claimant’s daily activities and the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain should be considered.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant’s subjective allegation of pain, standing alone, does not establish disability.

Selandia v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1997-03-24(a)

A claimant's subjective allegation of pain is not sufficient in itself to establish disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider daily activities, symptom details, aggravating factors, treatment and medication effectiveness, and other evidence concerning functional limitations when evaluating pain.

Loftus v. SSA · filed 1997-08-20(c)(3)

Subjective complaints of pain are evaluated in light of all of the evidence. 42 U.S.C.A. § 423(d)(5)(A)(1997 Supp.); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4)(1997); Avery v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 797 F.2d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 1986). ... When the claimant's reported symptoms of pain are significantly greater than the objective medical findings suggest, the ALJ must consider other relevant information to evaluate the claims. ... The ALJ must inguire about the claimant's daily activities; the location, duration, freguency, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the characteristics and effectiveness of any medication, treatments, or other measures the claimant is taking or has taken to relieve pain; and any other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations due to pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(1997); Avery, 797 F.2d at 23.

Section 404.1529(a) requires medical signs and laboratory findings showing an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce claimed pain before disability may be found based on subjective pain.

Pearl Snell v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Society Security · filed 1999-05-20(a)

Under § 404.1529(a), the absence of such findings precludes a determination of disability grounded on subjective pain.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ, when evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, to first determine whether the alleged pain is substantiated by objective medical evidence.

Moomey v. Apfel · filed 1998-05-05

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, the ALJ must first determine whether the pain alleged is substantiated by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant's subjective complaints of pain throughout the disability evaluation process.

Knapp v. Apfel · filed 1998-07-10(a)

The ALJ must consider subjective complaints of pain throughout the evaluation process.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether an impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and then assess their intensity and limiting effects using all available evidence and specified pain-related factors.

Menezes v. SSA · filed 2000-05-04(a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(3)

An ALJ must follow a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain. First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged. ... Then, if such an impairment exists, the ALJ must evaluate “the intensity and persistence of ... [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [the claimant’s] symptoms limit [his or her] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) (1999). At this stage, the ALJ must consider “all of the available evidence, including [the claimant’s] medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements from [the claimant], [the claimant’s] treating or examining physician or psychologist, or other persons about how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [the claimant].” Id. ... The Commissioner recognizes that symptoms such as pain may suggest a more severe impairment “than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires the adjudicator to consider the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of pain after a medically determinable condition capable of producing it is established, and to give specific, evidence-supported reasons for the credibility assessment.

Callahan v. Barnhart · filed 2002-01-30

The administrative law judge must consider Callahan’s subjective testimony regarding her pain if there is “evidence of an underlying medical condition, and either (1) objective medical evidence to confirm the severity of the alleged pain arising from that condition, or (2) that the objectively determined medical condition is of a severity that can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged pain.” ... Once Callahan established through objective medical evidence that an underlying medical condition existed that could reasonably be expected to produce pain, the administrative law judge was required to consider evidence about the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of pain in deciding the issue of disability. ... In making an evaluation of the claimant’s subjective complaints about pain, the administrative law judge is required to articulate specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by the evidence in the record. Such reasons must be sufficiently specific to make clear to the claimant and to any subsequent reviewers the weight the judge gave to the claimant’s statements and the reasons for that weight.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-part analysis of subjective complaints of pain: first establish a medically determinable impairment that could produce the symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, functional effects, and impact on basic work activities using specified factors.

Mesa v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-18

There is a two part analysis for evaluating subjective complaints of pain under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... First, the plaintiff must establish a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms. ... The next step is to determine the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of the symptoms and determine the extent to which the symptoms affect the individual’s ability to do basic work activities. ... The factors he considered were: 1) the claimant’s daily activities, 2) the duration, frequency, and intensity to the pain, 3) precipitating and aggravating factors, 4) the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication, 5) the prescribed treatment regimen, and 6) any other palliative measures he may use.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disability from pain to establish a medically determinable impairment capable of producing the pain, after which subjective pain complaints must be considered with the medical evidence in assessing work capacity.

Hector v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-01

When a plaintiff alleges disability resulting from pain, he must establish a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain. ... Once a medical impairment is established, the subjective complaints of pain must be considered along with the medical evidence in determining the individual’s work capacity.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective statements about symptoms and how they affect the claimant’s ability to work, including the listed factors for evaluating pain complaints.

Russell v. SSA · filed 2004-01-09(a), (c)(3)

The SSA regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s own subjective statements concerning her symptoms, including statements regarding how those symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (2000). A claimant’s subjective statements may suggest a more severe impairment “than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Accordingly, an ALJ evaluates a claimant’s complaints in light of the following factors: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication that the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate his pain; (5) treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of his pain; (6) any measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s limitations and restrictions due to pain. Id.; see Avery v . Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 797 F.2d 1 9 , 28-29 (1st Cir. 1986). These factors are sometimes called the “Avery factors.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a claimant’s allegations about the intensity and persistence of pain are accurately stated when evaluating subjective complaints.

Ahearn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-02-06

Finally, Ahearn argues the ALJ failed to properly consider her subjective complaints of pain as required pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Here, Ahearn argued she suffered additional pain that was sufficiently disabling to prevent her from resuming even sedentary work. This required the ALJ to determine whether her allegations of intensity and persistence of pain were accurately stated. See, e.g., Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999). Review of the record confirms the ALJ properly considered Ahearn’s subjective complaints of pain and found them to lack credibility in light of the record as a whole, which showed Ahearn to be capable of driving, running errands, dressing herself, actively participating in physical therapy, and, as reported by Dr. Lombardi, generally being “fairly active.” Because substantial evidence supports both the ALJ’s subjective pain credibility finding as well as the ALJ’s finding that any additional subjective pain experienced by Ahearn did not prevent her from resuming sedentary work, we will not disturb the ALJ’s findings on this ground.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step analysis when evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints.

Barringer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-02-24

The ALJ must perform a two-step analysis.

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

Brown v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-23

Moreover, “[t]he Act, regulations and case law mandate that the Secretary require that subjective complaints be corroborated, at least in part, by objective medical findings.”

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disability from pain to establish a medically determinable impairment capable of producing disabling pain.

George v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-31

When a claimant alleges disability resulting from pain, she must establish a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disabling pain to establish a medically determinable impairment capable of producing that pain, after which the pain complaints must be considered with the medical evidence in assessing work capacity.

Maharajh v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-05

When a plaintiff alleges disability resulting from pain, he must establish a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain. ... Once a medical impairment is established, the subjective complaints of pain must be considered along with the medical evidence in determining the individual’s work capacity.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disability from pain to establish a medically determinable impairment capable of producing disabling pain.

Washington v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-23

When a plaintiff alleges disability resulting from pain, she must establish a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disability from pain to establish a medically determinable impairment capable of producing disabling pain.

MULET-RIVERA v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-22

When a plaintiff alleges disability resulting from pain, she must establish a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that subjective complaints alone cannot establish disability.

Gantt v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2006-10-31(a)

Subjective complaints cannot alone establish disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider factors such as physician reports and a claimant’s daily activities when subjective complaints indicate greater impairment than objective medical evidence supports.

Whitmore v. Barnhart · filed 2007-01-09(c)(3)

When a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain indicate a greater severity of impairment than the objective medical evidence supports, the ALJ can give weight to factors such as physician’s reports and claimant’s daily activities.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disability from pain to establish a medically determinable impairment capable of producing disabling pain, after which the ALJ must consider the pain complaints with the medical evidence in determining work capacity.

Collins v. Astrue · filed 2007-04-16

When a plaintiff alleges disability resulting from pain, he must establish a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain. ... Once a medical impairment is established, the subjective complaints of pain must be considered along with the medical evidence in determining the individual’s work capacity.

Section 404.1529 directs an ALJ to consider specified factors when evaluating a claimant's symptoms and to assess their intensity and persistence after finding a medically determinable impairment that could produce them.

Khounesavatdy v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-10(a)-(c)

The factors to be considered in weighing credibility are set forth in the regulations and pertinent Social Security rulings. They include the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate the symptoms; treatment, other than medication, the person receives or has received for relief of the symptoms; any measures other than treatment the claimant uses or has used to relieve the symptoms; and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; S.S.R. 96-7p. ... With respect to the course of analysis directed by the regulations, the ALJ is first obligated to consider all symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). Once it is determined that there is a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine how the symptoms limit the capacity for work. §§ 404.1529(b), (c); 416.929(b), (c). The ALJ will consider all available evidence. To the extent that the claimant’s symptoms can be reasonably accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, the symptoms will be determined to diminish the claimant’s capacity for basic work activities. §§ 404.1529(c)(4); 416.929(c) (4). A claimant’s statements will not be rejected solely because unsubstantiated by the available objective medical evidence. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416. 929(c)(2). ... Here, a review of the ALJ’s reasoning and the medical record shows that the ALJ stated clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting Plaintiffs allegation of disabling functional limitations.

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

Hash v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-02-10(a)

An individual’s statements as to “pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [he is] disabled . . . .” Walters, 127 F.3d at 531 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disabling pain to establish a medically determinable impairment capable of producing that pain, after which the complaints must be considered with the medical evidence in assessing work capacity.

Puente v. Astrue · filed 2008-09-22

When a plaintiff alleges disability resulting from pain, he must establish a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain. ... Once a medical impairment is established, the subjective complaints of pain must be considered along with the medical evidence in determining the individual’s work capacity.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and requires evaluation of their intensity, persistence, and effects on the claimant’s ability to work.

Garibay v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-07-13(c)

Pursuant to the Commissioner’s regulations, “[ajllegations of pain and other subjective symptoms must be supported by objective medical evidence.” ... The ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the pain or symptom, and the extent to which it affects the individual’s ability to work. This obviously requires the ALJ to determine the extent to which a claimant is accurately stating the degree of pain or the extent to which he or she is disabled by it.” ... (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)).

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain are credible only when consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Costa v. SSA · filed 2010-11-03(a)

A claimant’s subjective complaints of pain will be deemed credible only if they are consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider regulatory factors when evaluating a claimant's credibility and support credibility findings with evidence in the record.

Underwood v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-13(c)

An ALJ’s power to discount credibility is not unlimited: he must consider a number of factors imposed by regulation, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), and must support his credibility findings with evidence in the record, see Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 562 (7th Cir.2009). Once he does, however, his credibility determinations are entitled to “special deference” and will not be overturned unless “patently wrong.” Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155,1160 (7th Cir.2010).

Section 404.1529 does not allow subjective complaints of pain, standing alone, to establish disability.

Andres v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-04-30

Further, Andres has failed to show that any of the physicians documented clinical findings consonant with his pain complaints, let alone assess any ongoing functional restrictions, including sitting limitations. Subjective complaints of pain alone do not support a disability finding. See generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of treatment other than medication and measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms when evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, but this court did not require those additional factors because Eighth Circuit precedent had not yet mandated them.

Walker v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-05-29

Social Security Regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 require the analysis of two additional factors: (1) “treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms” and (2) “any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.).” However, under Polaski and its progeny, the Eighth Circuit has not yet required the analysis of these additional factors. See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective pain symptoms, daily-activity limits, aggravating and relieving factors, pain treatment, and consistency with objective medical evidence when assessing RFC.

Rice v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-07-25(c)

The ALJ must consider the claimant’s assertion of physical pain when considering the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... The Avery factors require consideration of: the subjective symptoms of the claimant’s pain, whether the claimant’s daily activities are limited by the pain, whether there are factors that make the pain worse or better, whether the claimant is receiving treatment for the pain, and whether the pain is consistent with the claimant’s other objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); see Avery, 797 F.2d. at 29. ... Here, the ALJ did consider the Avery factors when determining how much weight to give to Rice’s subjective pain complaints. ... Therefore, the ALJ considered the relevant Avery factors, and her RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 identifies factors for assessing a claimant’s symptoms, including treatment received and measures used for relief, but this court held that Eighth Circuit precedent did not require analysis of those two additional factors.

Warren v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2019-02-05

Social Security Regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 require the analysis of two additional factors: (1) “treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms” and (2) “any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.).” However, under Polaski and its progeny, the Eighth Circuit has not yet required the analysis of these additional factors. See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant's statements about pain cannot alone establish disability and must be supported by objective medical evidence.

Malone v. Saul · filed 2019-06-14(a)

Claimant’s statements concerning pain “will not alone establish . . . disab[ility].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Such statements must be backed by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the claimant's symptoms and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

HARBISON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-24

Here, the ALJ specifically stated that she considered “all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p. “ (R. 25) Moreover, the ALJ followed the proper method in assessing Harbison’s symptoms and pain. That is, she first determined whether there was an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce Harbison’s pain or other symptoms, then she evaluated the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of those symptoms.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s pain and other symptoms through a two-step process and determine how those symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Dokes v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-26(a)

As of March 28, 2016, ALJs must follow a revised two-step analysis in reviewing a claimant’s subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017) (correcting terminology relating to applicable date); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1237954 (Mar. 24, 2016) (correcting effective date to March 28, 2016). ... Upon review of the ALJ’s decision and the record, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the consistency between the evidence of record and Plaintiff's subjective complaints, including the extent to which Plaintiff could perform her activities of daily living. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility assessment.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints.

Combs v. Saul · filed 2020-08-26

Objective medical evidence is a proper factor for consideration in evaluating subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. The ALJ considered that Combs underwent conservative treatment over time (Tr. 18-20), with infrequent and relatively mild ailments reported regarding her knee pain and later back, shoulders, and hips. (Tr. 18-19). ... Furthermore, the ALJ also appropriately considered that Combs’ examinations and imaging failed to support her allegations of total disability (Tr. 18-20). The ALJ considered that the imaging showed “mostly mild degenerative changes.” (Tr. 19-20).

Section 404.1529(a) requires more than a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain: the claimant must show an underlying medical condition and either objective evidence confirming the pain’s severity or that the condition reasonably could cause the claimed pain.

Jones v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-02-17(a)

The Social Security Regulations provide that a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain alone cannot establish disability. Rather, the regulations describe additional objective evidence that permits a finding of disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Interpreting these regulations, the Eleventh Circuit has articulated a “pain standard” that applies when a claimant attempts to establish disability through her own testimony of pain or other subjective symptoms. When establishing disability in this manner, a claimant must satisfy two parts of the Eleventh Circuit’s three-part pain standard: “(1) evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). ... On this record, the court cannot say that the ALJ was clearly wrong to discredit Jones’ subjective pain testimony.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to compare them with objective medical evidence and other record evidence, including treatment, medication, relief measures, medical opinions, prior work, and daily activities.

Owens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-19(c)

When making a symptom evaluation determination, the ALJ considers all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. ... The regulations define “objective evidence” to include medical signs shown by medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). “Other evidence” includes evidence from medical sources, medical history, and statements about treatment the claimant has received. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). Additionally, the ALJ considers such factors as treatment history; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken; treatment other than medications; any other measures used for relief of pain or other symptoms; any precipitating and aggravating factors; medical source opinions; statements by the claimant or others about pain and other symptoms; information about prior work; and evidence of daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3). ... Considering this, Plaintiff has not shown that the ALJ ran afoul of the Eleventh Circuit’s pain standard. See Holt, 921 F.2d at 1221. The ALJ articulated specific and adequate reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s subjective pain complaints. Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561-62. ... On this record, the ALJ did not err in considering Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between symptom testimony and objective medical evidence, though not as the sole reason for rejection, and to consider medication, treatment, relief measures, and improvement with treatment.

Stowell v. Saul · filed 2021-02-25(c)

The ALJ properly considered how consistent Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements were with this objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). This could not be the ALJ’s sole reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s statements about her symptoms, but it was a factor that the ALJ was permitted to consider. Id.; see also Burch, 400 F.3d at 681 (“Although lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ can consider in his credibility analysis.”); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (while a claimant’s subjective statements about symptomology “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor”). Thus, the lack of consistency between Plaintiff’s medical records and her testimony was a proper basis for the ALJ’s discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. ... It was proper for the ALJ to have considered Plaintiff’s treatment history in analyzing her asserted symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv),(v),(vi) (factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms, such as pain, which the Commissioner will consider include medication taken to alleviate symptoms; treatment received for pain; and measures used to relieve pain); see also Burch, 400 F.3d at 681 (holding that “ALJ is permitted to consider lack of treatment in his credibility determination”); Moncada, 60 F.3d at 524 (claimant’s allegations of disabling pain can be discredited by evidence of infrequent medical treatment or by the minimal use of pain medication). Moreover, it was indeed proper for the ALJ to have considered Plaintiff’s improvement with treatment as a basis for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. ... Based on these clear, convincing and specific reasons for partially rejecting Plaintiff’s pain and limitations testimony and the substantial evidence to support his determination, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not commit error in discounting Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(a)–(c) requires a claimant relying on subjective symptoms to show an underlying medical condition and either objective confirmation of symptom severity or a condition reasonably expected to cause the symptoms, after which the ALJ evaluates their intensity, persistence, and work effects using the entire record.

Whitaker v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-08(a)–(c)

Whitaker’s subjective complaints alone are insufficient to establish a disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.926(a); see also Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Landry v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1551, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986)). However, subjective testimony of pain and other symptoms may establish the presence of a disabling impairment if it is supported by medical evidence. See Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). The Eleventh Circuit applies a two-part pain standard when a plaintiff claims disability due to pain or other subjective symptoms. 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); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. 49,463 n. 3 (Oct. 25, 2017); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir. 1991)). ... The record as a whole, as discussed by the ALJ, provides substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s evaluation of Whitaker’s subjective complaints of disabling pain and other symptoms regarding his right-hand tremors. ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Whitaker’s subjective statements and his assessment of Whitaker’s RFC.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c) makes a claimant’s pain statement insufficient by itself to prove disability and requires consideration of pain intensity and persistence, daily activities, objective medical records, and inconsistencies with the remaining evidence.

SIMMONS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-03-08(a), (c)

An individual's statement concerning pain is not alone conclusive evidence of a disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Rather, the intensity and persistence of the pain must be considered, using plaintiff’s testimony, including activities of daily living, and objective medical records as evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). The Commissioner is entitled to “consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence, and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [plaintiff’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). If plaintiff’s testimony of pain and other symptoms can be reasonably accepted as consistent with the medical evidence, then plaintiff can be deemed disabled. If the Commissioner discredits such testimony, “he must articulate explicit and adequate reasons,” or the testimony must be accepted as true. Cannon v. Bowen, 858 F.2d 1541, 1545 (11th Cir. 1988). ... The ALJ thoroughly reviewed the records of Plaintiff’s medical treatment and his subjective accounts of limitations. The Court finds that the ALJ made a credibility finding which is supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ reviewed in detail the objective medical record and Plaintiff’s testimony, and found that his statements were not supported by the objective medical record, to the degree of impairment alleged by Plaintiff. The ALJ did credit portions of Plaintiff’s testimony to establish his RFC at the light work level with restrictions and to find that he was unable to return to his past relevant work. The ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s allegations were not wholly supported by the objective record is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to assess whether symptom-related work limitations are substantiated by objective medical evidence and, if not, to consider other record evidence in determining those limitations.

Helton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-10(c)(3)

The ALJ should consider all three prongs of the pain standard to determine whether a claimant’s pain is disabling, but an ALJ also must consider “‘whether the intensity and persistence of the symptoms limit the individual’s ability to perform work-related activities.’” See Hargress v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 883 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Social Security Ruling 16-3). The ALJ must evaluate whether the statements regarding limiting effects of pain are substantiated by objective medical evidence, and if they are not, the ALJ must consider other evidence in the record to determine how the symptoms limit the claimant’s work-related activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... Substantial evidence from Ms. Helton’s medical records supports the ALJ’s determination that Ms. Helton was not as limited by her pain as she asserts, and the ALJ properly explained her reasons for rejecting statements by Ms. Helton and discussed which evidence contradicted Ms. Helton’s pain testimony.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(4) requires an ALJ, after a claimant presents an impairment that could cause the alleged symptoms, to assess symptom-related functional limits by determining whether the claimant’s statements are consistent with the record as a whole.

Bothum v. Saul · filed 2021-03-12(a), (c)(4)

[W]hen a claimant presents “objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which might reasonably produce the pain or other symptoms [the claimant] alleged,” the ALJ is required to determine the extent to which the claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his or her subjective symptoms . . . are consistent with the record evidence as a whole and, consequently, whether any of the individual’s symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions are likely to reduce the claimant’s capacity to perform work-related activities. Lourdes C. v. Saul, Case No. 8:19-cv-01531-JC, 2020 WL 2733666, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 25, 2020) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(4); SSR 16-3p). “When an individual’s subjective statements are inconsistent with other evidence in the record, an ALJ may give less weight to such statements and, in turn, find that the individual’s symptoms are less likely to reduce the claimant’s capacity to perform work-related activities.” Id. ... What the ALJ appears to have done here is “cherry-pick evidence to support [his] findings,” rather than “review the whole record[.]” Lannon v. Comm’r of Social Security Admin., 234 F. Supp. 3d 951, 960 (D. Ariz. 2017) (citation omitted). The record as a whole is consistent with plaintiff’s pain and symptom statements as they relate to his bilateral foot pain. Thus, the second reason given by the ALJ for discounting plaintiff’s pain and symptom statements as they relate to his bilateral foot pain was not clear and convincing.

Section 404.1529(c)–(d) requires an ALJ, after an underlying condition is established, to evaluate symptom intensity, persistence, work effects, and inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and the other evidence.

Hart v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-15(c)–(d)

If a claimant satisfies the first part of the test, the ALJ must evaluate the underlying condition’s intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) & (d), 416.929(c) & (d). While evaluating the evidence, the ALJ must consider whether inconsistencies exist within the evidence or between the claimant’s statements and the evidence, including her history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements by medical sources or other sources about how her symptoms affect her. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) & 416.929(c)(4). Thus, a claimant’s subjective pain testimony supported by medical evidence supports a finding of disability. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir. 1995). ... The ALJ committed no reversible error because she explicitly and adequately provided her reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s pain testimony, and substantial evidence exists to support her decision.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)–(3) requires a two-step symptom evaluation that first identifies an impairment reasonably capable of causing the symptoms and then considers objective evidence, daily activities, and other factors to assess their intensity, persistence, and functional limits.

Saylor v. SSA · filed 2021-03-18(c)(1)–(3)

To assess a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms, “the ALJ must [first] determine whether a claimant has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” Grames v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 815 F. App’x 820, 825 (6th Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Calvin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 437 F. App’x 370, 371 (6th Cir. 2011); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3 (Oct. 25, 2017)). Second, “[t]he ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence and the claimant’s reported daily activities, as well as several other factors, to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functional limitations of the claimant’s symptoms.” Id. (citing Curler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 561 F. App’x 464, 474 (6th Cir. 2014); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4, *7-8). Courts “give great deference to the ALJ’s credibility determination as long as it was supported by substantial evidence.” Tweedle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 731 F. App’x 506, 507 (6th Cir. 2018). ... Thus, the ALJ complied with the two-step procedure outlined in the regulations, and her opinion regarding Plaintiff’s credibility and subjective complaints of pain was supported by substantial evidence.