20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider other evidence—including testimony, daily activities, medication, and other relief measures—when alleged symptom limitations exceed what objective evidence reflects.

Martinez v. Social Security · filed 2021-03-30(c)

There is no question that Plaintiff had a physical impairment that could reasonably produce her pain. However, the limiting effects of that pain in the work that Plaintiff could perform must be based on medical records and other factors when evaluating Plaintiff’s symptoms. If, as in this case, Plaintiff complains of symptoms that suggest restrictions that are greater than the objective evidence reflects, the ALJ must consider other factors. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p. In this case, the ALJ appropriately considered several factors, such as medical records, Plaintiff’s testimony at the hearing, her daily activities, the medications taken, and other measures taken by Plaintiff for relief of pain other than medication. In sum, the ALJ’s conclusion that the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s pain was not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence on the record was based on substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms cannot, by themselves, establish disability.

Hall v. SSA · filed 2021-05-26(a)

Similarly, a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms cannot alone establish disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... In her August 2019 decision, the ALJ carefully and reasonably considered the total record, (Tr. 12, 14, 17; Finding No. 5), including thoroughly considering relevant medical opinions and prior administrative findings in the making of her reasonable step-three and RFC findings. (Tr. 16-22; Finding Nos. 4, 5). ... For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s final decision is supported by substantial evidence and shall be affirmed by the Court.

Section 404.1529(a) requires careful consideration of a claimant’s symptom statements but provides that those statements alone do not establish disability and need not be credited.

Sheare v. Saul · filed 2021-06-14(a)

It is important to note that though the “statements of the individual concerning his or her symptoms must be carefully considered, the ALJ is not required to credit them.” Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 363 (3d. Cir. 2011) (referencing 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(a) (“statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled.”).

Section 404.1529(a) makes subjective complaints insufficient by themselves to establish disability and places on the claimant the burden of providing evidence supporting allegations of disabling pain or other symptoms.

Richardson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-31(a)

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s subjective complaints will not alone establish disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Plaintiff has the burden of providing sufficient evidence to support allegations of disabling pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(a) makes symptom statements alone insufficient to establish disability and requires medical signs and findings showing an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms.

Patterson v. Saul · filed 2021-09-10(a)

An individual's statement as to pain or other symptoms shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability as defined in this section; there must be medical signs and findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, which show the existence of a medical impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged Mickles v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 918, 924 (4th Cir. 1994) (emphasis added) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.929, 404.1529 (1983)).

Section 404.1529(a) makes subjective complaints insufficient by themselves to establish disability and requires evidence supporting alleged disabling pain or other symptoms.

Dorsey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(a)

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s subjective complaints will not alone establish disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Plaintiff has the burden of providing sufficient evidence to support allegations of disabling pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider subjective fatigue and may allow objective evidence to test symptom allegations without disregarding them.

Wells v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-29

Plaintiff’s central argument on appeal is that the ALJ failed to fully consider her subjective complaint of fatigue in compliance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which requires an ALJ to consider a list of factors when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptom. ... While the ALJ must consider a claimant’s subjective complaints, she is allowed to examine the objective medical evidence to test claimant’s credibility.

Subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms cannot establish disability without medical and other evidence.

Suddath v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-14(a)

However, a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms, alone, cannot establish disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, but does not require discussion of every individual factor.

Ballard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-24(c)

In evaluating the claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ considers objective medical evidence, as well as other non-exhaustive factors such as evidence of daily activities, the frequency and intensity of pain, medication taken and any resulting side effects, and any other measures taken to alleviate the pain. ... The ALJ does not have to discuss each individual factor and how it comports with the record evidence. ... ALJ Eastham complied with the regulations by considering the record, and not just Claimant’s subjective complaints or cherry-picked medical findings, in fashioning Claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective complaints to consider the claimant’s daily activities, the condition’s duration, frequency, and intensity, medication, precipitating and aggravating factors, and functional restrictions, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor.

Voegele v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-03

The Polaski factors are now embodied in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... In analyzing a claimant's subjective complaints, an ALJ must consider: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the condition; (3) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; (4) precipitating and aggravating factors; and (5) functional restrictions. ... While ALJs must acknowledge and consider these factors before discounting a claimant's subjective complaints, they “need not explicitly discuss each Polaski factor.” ... Here, the ALJ properly considered the Polaski factors and articulated bases for discounting Voegele’s credibility.

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

Pondi v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

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

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

ASHJARI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-04-09(a)

What’s more, as a □ matter of law, Plaintiff's own subjective complaints “cannot alone establish disability.” Gantt v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 205 F. App’x 65, 67 (d Cir. 2006) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate seven specified factors when a claimant’s allegations of pain and limitation are not substantiated by objective medical evidence.

Caro Jr. v. O'Malley · filed 2025-04-29(c)(3)

If the claimant’s allegations of pain and limitation are “not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” Meadors, 370 F. App’x at 184. This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii)). ... The ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints is undermined by his errors in considering the treating providers’ opinions, as discussed above. Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of limitation are supported by, and consistent with, the assessments of both of his long-term treating mental health providers. The ALJ’s failure to properly account for this significant support was error requiring reversal.

Section 404.1529(a) requires objective medical evidence to corroborate subjective complaints because allegations of pain or other symptoms alone do not establish disability.

MESSINA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-07-07(a)

To be sure, subjective allegations of pain or symptoms do not alone establish a disability. See Miller v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 719 F. App’x 130, 134 (3d Cir. 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(a)). Rather, objective medical evidence is required to corroborate the subjective complaints of the claimant. Prokopick v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 272 F. App’x 196, 199 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)); see also Christopher F. v. Kijakazi, No. 21-516, 2022 WL 9169835, at *8 (D.N.J. Oct. 14, 2022).

A claimant’s allegations alone cannot establish disability under Section 404.1529, and an ALJ may discount subjective complaints that are unsupported by the record after evaluating the evidence as a whole.

Burleson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-14(c)

A claimant’s allegations alone can never establish that she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. An ALJ can discount a Plaintiff’s subjective complaints when they are unsupported by the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 595 (4th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff is not required to be without symptoms to be found not disabled by the ALJ.

Section 404.1529 governs how an ALJ evaluates a claimant’s subjective complaints about symptoms.

Norman v. Apfel · filed 1999-02-01

The ALJ’s consideration of the subjective aspects of plaintiffs complaints comported with the regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and the framework set forth in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir.1984).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective pain complaints, considering whether an impairment could cause the symptoms and then their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects in light of the evidence.

Cook v. SSA · filed 2020-06-17

Instead, the regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating claimants’ subjective complaints of pain, and the ALJ engaged in that analysis here.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when evaluating a claimant's subjective symptoms, including pain.

Amato v. Apfel · filed 1999-03-22(c)(3)

Specifically, the ALJ must consider: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, onset, duration, freguency, radiation, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse side-effects of any pain medications; (5) any non-medication forms of treatment for pain relief employed by the claimant; (6) any functional restrictions; ... and (7) any other relevant factors.

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical signs or laboratory findings to establish a medically determinable impairment but does not require medical support to prove the severity of pain once the impairment is established.

Johnson v. Shalala · filed 1995-07-27(b)

The regulations state that subjective complaints of pain will not establish disability “unless medical signs or laboratory findings show that a medically determinable impairment(s) is present.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). However, once an impairment is medically established, the ALJ cannot require medical support to prove the severity of the pain.

Section 404.1529(e)(3) directs consideration of other evidence, including statements about symptoms and daily activities, when evaluating symptoms.

Dedis v. Chater · filed 1997-02-11(e)(3)

Finally, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiffs subjective complaints of pain, at least as of the date of Dr. Wani’s September 21, 1994 assessment, pursuant to Avery v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 797 F.2d 19 (1st Cir.1986). See 42 U.S.C. § 428(d)(5)(A). In particular, Avery requires the consideration by the ALJ of the following: (1) the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of pain; (2) any precipitating or aggravating factors; (3) the type, dosage, effectiveness and adverse side-effects of any pain medication; (4) any treatment, other than medication, for the relief of pain; (5) any functional restrictions; and (6) the claimant’s daily activities. Id. at 29. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(e)(3).

Section 404.1529 permits the Commissioner to weigh a claimant’s subjective complaints against the medical evidence and reject them.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-01-30

Finally, while the Commissioner must seriously consider a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, see Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968 (3d Cir.1981), it is within the Commissioner’s discretion to weigh such complaints against the medical evidence, and to reject them. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires pain allegations to be evaluated with medical evidence after a medically determinable impairment capable of producing the pain is established.

Woods v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-05

When a plaintiff alleges disability resulting from pain, he must establish a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain. See Ripley, 67 F.3d at 556 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529).

Section 404.1529 requires disability determinations to consider a claimant’s subjective pain when it is reasonably consistent with the medical evidence and to evaluate six specified factors.

Conte v. McMahon · filed 2007-01-30

In addition to objective medical reports, the hearing officer’s determination of disability must take into account the subjective pain of the claimant that is reasonably consistent with the medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 96-7p. The hearing officer must evaluate subjective pain in accordance with the following six factors: (1) the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of any pain; (2) precipitating and aggravating factors (e.g., movement, activity, environmental conditions); (3) type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse side-effects of any pain medication; (4) treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain; (5) functional restrictions; and (6) the claimant’s daily activities.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant to establish a medically determinable impairment capable of producing disabling pain before subjective complaints are considered with the medical evidence.

Hawthorne v. Astrue · filed 2007-03-19

When a plaintiff alleges disability resulting from pain, he must establish a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain. See Ripley, 67 F.3d at 556 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529). 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. See id.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating claimed disabling pain to consider medical evidence and relevant factors such as daily activities, medication, and treatment.

Martin v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-16(c)

The ALJ then properly considered the factors set forth in §§ 404.1529(c)(2) and 416.929(c)(3) — including Martin’s daily activities; the medication she has taken; and the treatment, other than medication, that she has received for her pain, see id. § 416.929(c)(3)(i), (iv), (v) — and concluded that they did not support Martin’s subjective testimony of disabling pain. Because this analysis follows the steps set forth in the applicable regulations, we identify no merit in Martin’s challenge.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to reject subjective pain complaints when objective findings do not support them, provided the ALJ explains the rejection.

Antoniewicz v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-10(c)

Although allegations of pain and other subjective symptoms must be consistent with objective medical evidence, see Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir.1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529), the ALJ must still explain why he is rejecting the testimony. ... Here, the ALJ provided a detailed explanation of why he rejected plaintiffs testimony regarding the extent of her pain, most notably that her subjective complaints of pain were not supported by the objective findings on examination.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider the entire record and explain with specificity why subjective complaints of pain are discounted.

Anderson v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-10

As discussed, the ALJ must consider the entire record (including the seven factors discussed) and explain and support his credibility determinations with a degree of specificity.

Section 404.1529 evaluates subjective complaints of pain in two parts while retaining the substance of the Luna test.

Hanken v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-18

The Commissioner’s regulations have distilled this test into two parts, but the required analysis is the same. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 & 416.929; see also Social Security Ruling 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 (SSA July 2, 1996).

Subsection (c) calls for consideration of factors bearing on a claimant’s reported pain when evaluating symptoms.

Patterson v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-26(c)

Although the hearing officer does not refer to Avery, he makes specific reference to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), which parallels the Avery, factors. ... Since the hearing officer clearly has referred to all the factors set out in Avery, Patterson’s claim that the hearing officer erred by failing to evaluate her complaints under the Avery standard fails.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms to determine how they limit the claimant’s ability to work.

WOODSIDE v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-08-30(c)(3)

Once an impairment is found, the ALJ then must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which those symptoms limit his ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)- (vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii) (factors relevant to symptoms can include daily activities, medications and medical treatment). ... Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiffs’ subjective complaints of pain were inconsistent with the evidence of record, and that the ALJ did not err in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC without pain-related functional limitations.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to consider relevant factors and inconsistencies in the record when evaluating a claimant’s complaints of pain.

GLUBISH v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-02-20(c)

The ALJ will look at inconsistencies between the claimant's statements and the evidence presented. Id. ... As laid out in her decision, the ALJ considered and weighed the appropriate factors.

Section 404.1529 allows an ALJ to consider the absence of objective medical evidence when evaluating pain, but that absence alone does not establish that the pain is not disabling.

Evelyn LAYTON, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1984-02-07

Although the absence of evidence showing an objective medical basis for pain may be considered in evaluating the credibility of the testimony about pain, such absence does not automatically compel a finding that the claimant’s pain is not disabling.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s reported symptoms alongside the medical and other evidence when assessing the claimant’s ability to work.

Schwartz v. Halter · filed 2001-03-08(a)

When determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s subjective complaints and the extent to which such subjective symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. ... Because these rejections of evidence are intertwined, and in light of the inadequate explanations provided by the ALJ for his findings on Schwartz’s credibility and Dr. Fly’s opinions, the ALJ’s determination as to the credibility of Schwartz’s allegations of pain and inability to work cannot be said to be supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 sets a two-part standard for evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints.

Pitts v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-26

Consistent with the governing regulations, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective statements as to the limitations caused by his impairments (Tr. 26-34); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (setting out a two-part standard for evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s activities, symptoms, treatment, and inconsistencies with the record when evaluating symptom statements.

STROUP v. SAUL · filed 2021-12-17(c)

Additionally, the ALJ will also consider daily activities; ... and any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c), 416.929(c). The ALJ will also look at inconsistencies between the claimant's statements and the evidence presented. Id. ... Regardless, I find the ALJ applied the standard above and adequately explained his reason for discounting Plaintiff’s statements.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the alleged symptoms, then assess whether the record supports the claimed intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Tolson v. SSA · filed 2022-01-20(b), (c)

First, the ALJ must conclude that there is a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). The second step requires that a claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms find support in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The ALJ did not err in evaluating Tolson’s subjective complaints of pain because: (1) she properly applied the above-stated process for evaluating Tolson’s subjective complaints of pain and limiting effects of her impairments; and (2) her decision is supported by the medical evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(a) does not permit disability benefits based solely on a claimant’s statements about symptoms.

Taffe v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-22(a)

Congress prohibits granting disability benefits based exclusively on a claimant’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the alleged symptoms, then assess the claimed intensity and limitations against the record.

Harris v. SSA · filed 2022-03-16(b), (c)

Because the ALJ properly applied the two-step framework for evaluating subjective complaints of pain, and the medical record includes images showing mild impairments and normal physical evaluations, she properly evaluated Harris’ subjective complaints of pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s symptom statements and other evidence when assessing those symptoms.

Hightower v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(c)(4)

In considering a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ may consider whether any inconsistencies exist in the evidence and the extent to which any conflicts exist between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence, including the claimant’s history, signs and laboratory findings, and statements by medical sources or other persons about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). ... The ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain and limitations, and the ALJ’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective complaints when evaluating the effects of pain, even if the ALJ does not accept those complaints.

Kessler v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-04

While the Commissioner is correct that the ALJ was not required to accept Kessler’s subjective complaints, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the claimant’s subjective complaints in evaluating the impact of pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (March 16, 2016).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s pain complaints and assess whether the alleged symptoms are consistent with the medical and other evidence.

Neyerlin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-23

An ALJ must always consider a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain during the disability determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; see Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010). ... Based on the ALJ’s adherence to the two-step evaluation process and his thorough discussion of the relevant evidence, the ALJ did not improperly discount Plaintiffs subjective complaints of abdominal pain.

A claimant’s subjective complaints alone do not establish disability.

Bullock v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-21(a)

A claimant’s subjective complaints are insufficient to establish a disability.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms against the medical evidence and other relevant factors, including treatment and daily activities.

Reaves v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-25

Social Security Ruling 16-3p eliminated the word “credibility” from the analysis of subjective complaints, replacing it with “consistency” of a claimant’s allegations with other evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... This evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s physical impairments were not as severe as she claimed, and the Court finds no error as to the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s pain.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate subjective pain complaints using medical and other evidence, including daily activities, treatment effectiveness, and functional restrictions.

Pauley v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-09

The ALJ properly utilized the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, SSR 16-3p, and Polaski to evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective pain allegations.

Section 404.1529 treats an underlying medically determinable impairment as the objective source that can substantiate a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain.

Snee v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1987-05-08

The objective medical evidence with regard to plaintiff’s condition is in essential agreement. An underlying orthopedic impairment has been established. Moreover, the condition is of the nature contemplated by the Secretary at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, being the underlying objective source of subjective complaints of pain.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical signs or findings showing a medical condition reasonably expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms before disability may be found based on those symptoms.

Sylvia MOOTHART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1991-06-05

HHS’ regulations state: “We will never find that you are disabled based on your symptoms, including pain, unless medical signs or findings show that there is a medical condition that could be reasonably expected to produce those symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... Under this standard, we must affirm the Appeals Council’s decision because, again, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the objective medical signs and findings fail to show a condition that would reasonably be expected to produce the degree of pain that Moothart alleges.

Section 404.1529 requires symptoms, including pain, to be supported by medical signs and laboratory findings showing a medical condition that could reasonably be expected to produce them.

Cashman v. Shalala · filed 1993-03-31

Objective evidence of pain is also required under the Social Security regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1992) states that all symptoms, including pain, must have medical signs and laboratory findings which reveal the existence of a medical condition which could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms or pain.

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical signs or laboratory findings showing an abnormality reasonably expected to produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms.

Home Sinthavong v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary · filed 1993-05-17(b)

Moreover, Sinthavong offered no evidence of a hearing impairment, and the record contains no medical signs or laboratory findings revealing physiological or anatomical abnormalities "which would reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); see also Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them; the absence of objective evidence is necessary but not sufficient to support a finding of no disability.

Dray v. Railroad Retirement Board · filed 1993-12-01(c)(2)

“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statement.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (1992). ... The court need not consider Dray’s use of medications because § 404.-1529(c)(2) makes the absence of objective medical evidence a necessary but not sufficient condition to support a finding of not disabled.

The regulation requires objective medical findings showing a condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain symptoms.

Bilodeau v. Shalala · filed 1994-06-24

For disability to be based upon the functional limitation of pain, there must be some objective medical findings which demonstrate the existence of a condition which reasonably could be expected to produce such symptoms.

Section 404.1529(b) requires objective medical evidence to be considered when a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain, whenever such evidence is available.

Toro v. Chater · filed 1996-09-10(b)

When a medically determinable impairment exists that reasonably could be expected to produce the pain alleged, objective medical evidence must be considered in determining whether a disability exists, whenever such evidence is available. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) identifies findings from medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques—such as reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, and motor disruption—as objective evidence of symptom intensity and persistence.

Laskowski v. Apfel · filed 2000-04-19(c)(2)

The type of medical evidence cited by Plaintiffs physicians is consistent with that which 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) describes as constituting objective evidence of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms. “Objective medical evidence is evidence obtained from the application of medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques, such as evidence of reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit or motor disruption.” Section 1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to evaluating the severity and disabling effects of symptoms, but it cannot by itself justify rejecting subjective symptom testimony.

Rollins v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2001-08-17(c)(2)

While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant's pain and its disabling effects. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats objective medical evidence as a useful indicator of disability but does not permit pain allegations to be rejected solely for lack of objective medical support.

BRISCOE EX REL. TAYLOR v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-11(c)(2)

Objective medical evidence is a “useful indicator” in determining whether a claimant was disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). However, when determining whether a disabling condition exists, lack of objective medical evidence substantiating claims of pain can not be the sole basis for rejecting the claimant’s allegations. Id.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant's subjective pain complaints to be supported by objective medical evidence showing a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain.

Johnson v. Barnhart, Comm · filed 2006-01-26(c)(2)

[S]ubjective claims of pain must be supported by objective medical evidence showing the existence of a medical impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the actual pain, in the amount and degree, alleged by the claimant.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged pain, but does not require objective proof of the pain itself.

Hill v. Barnhart · filed 2006-07-25

While both the regulations and the Hand standard require objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain itself.

Section 404.1529(c) requires a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms before those symptoms can support a severe-impairment finding.

Krzywoszyja v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-08-08(c)

There were other symptoms that the ALJ considered but the regulation prevents a finding of severe impairment absent a previous medical diagnosis that could reasonably produce such symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or work impact solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Williams ex rel. Townsend v. Colvin · filed 2014-07-02(c)(2)

Again this is the Social Security Administration’s own rule: 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) states that “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)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s symptom allegations solely for lack of objective medical evidence but permits considering that absence as probative.

Rinehart v. Colvin · filed 2018-02-06(c)(2)

Although an ALJ may not discount a claimant’s pain allegations based solely on a lack of supporting objective evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), the ALJ may consider that factor “as probative” in assessing the claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes medical evidence relevant to assessing the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s pain, but does not permit denial solely because alleged pain lacks objective support.

Springer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-12(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s pain testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of pain alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an adjudicator to consider the lack of objective medical evidence as a factor when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant's symptoms.

Van Remmen v. Saul · filed 2019-09-03(c)(2)

The ALJ properly considered the lack of any abnormal findings in the relevant period as a factor in evaluating Van Remmen’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats medical evidence as relevant to determining the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s pain.

Hampton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-17(c)(2)

However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats objective medical evidence as a useful indicator for drawing reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

ALDRICH v. SAUL · filed 2019-09-23(c)(2)

Here, the Court finds the ALJ’s analysis is correct and supported by substantial evidence. First, despite Plaintiff’s allegations to the contrary, the ALJ properly rejected his allegations of disability because they were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms”); Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom severity but does not permit rejecting subjective complaints solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate them.

Foreman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-29(c)(2)

Although an ALJ may consider the medical evidence in evaluating the severity of a claimant’s pain, “‘an [ALJ] may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.’” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991)) (alteration in original); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating subjective symptoms, but does not permit rejecting testimony solely because objective evidence does not substantiate it.

Chisholm v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-30(c)(2)

To make this assessment, the ALJ may rely on numerous factors but cannot discredit a claimant’s testimony solely because it was not substantiated by objective medical evidence. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... Contrary to Claimant’s assertion, the ALJ could properly consider this objective medical evidence at step two of her analysis, so long as it was not the only factor she considered.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence in evaluating the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s pain, but minimal objective evidence cannot be the only factor supporting rejection of testimony.

Vooge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-31(c)(2)

Medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. ... Minimal objective evidence is a factor which may be relied upon in discrediting a claimant’s testimony, although it may not be the only factor.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence a relevant factor in assessing the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s pain, but pain testimony cannot be rejected solely because objective evidence does not support its alleged degree.

Cutler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-02(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s pain testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of pain alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes medical evidence a relevant factor in determining the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s pain.

Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-12(c)(2)

However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars the Commissioner from rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or effects on the ability to work solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Delozier v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-21(c)(2)

... The ALJ may not, however, reject subjective pain testimony solely because it was not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows an adjudicator to consider objective medical evidence when assessing symptom severity but forbids rejecting a claimant’s statements solely because that evidence does not substantiate them.

Tolman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-27(c)(2)

The ALJ may not, however, reject subjective pain testimony solely because it was not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner will not “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”). ... The ALJ properly considered the degree of the objective medical findings as a factor in “determining the severity of [Plaintiff’s] pain.” Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857. The ALJ, however, did not solely rely on the lack of support in Plaintiff’s objective medical records to discount Plaintiff’s testimony concerning her physical impairments.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or effects on work solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Eckel v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-27(c)(2)

The ALJ may not, however, reject subjective pain testimony solely because it was not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an adjudicator to consider objective medical evidence from medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques when determining how symptoms limit a claimant's capacity for work.

Keaton v. Saul · filed 2020-09-15(c)(2)

The physical therapy records in this case do not contain medical opinions, but rather, are contemporaneous treatment records. This is particularly important given that an ALJ must consider “objective medical evidence” when “determining the extent to which [a plaintiff’s] symptoms limit [the] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Objective medical evidence is “evidence obtained from the application of medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, such as evidence of reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit or motor disruption. Objective medical evidence of this type is a useful indicator to assist [the Commissioner] in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms, and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on [the claimant’s] ability to work.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the ALJ must consider the objective evidence contained in these treatment records.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to use objective medical evidence as an indicator when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms and their effect on a claimant's ability to work, including in mental-disability cases.

LOCK v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-09-15(c)(2)

As already explained, “[o]bjective medical evidence... is a useful indicator to assist [the ALJ] in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms ... may have on your ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). Even if objective findings could be said to be more probative in a case of physical disability, that does not in turn mean that they have no probative value in a case of mental disability, and it certainly does not follow that an ALJ commits error by still observing and weighing an absence of objective findings.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant's statements about the intensity and persistence of symptoms or their effects on the ability to work solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-01(c)(2)

A lack of support in the objective medical evidence cannot, by itself, support rejecting a plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes medical evidence relevant to determining the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s pain.

Beasley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-16(c)(2)

However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting subjective pain testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it but permits objective evidence to inform symptom severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(c)(2)

Although 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)). Irrespective of whether Plaintiff’s degenerative changes previously prevented her from working, the ALJ appropriately observed that objective medical evidence demonstrated primarily age-consistent degenerative changes.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of severity but permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity and disabling effects.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... Plaintiff offers an alternative interpretation of the evidence, ECF No. 20 at 13-15, however, the ALJ’s finding that the objective findings were out of proportion with and did not corroborate Plaintiff’s report of severe physical and psychological restrictions is reasonable. This was a clear and convincing reason, along with the other reason offered, to discount Plaintiff’s symptom reports.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting subjective symptoms solely for lack of objective corroboration but permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity when other supporting reasons also exist.

(SS) Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(c)(2)

The ALJ appropriately identified objective medical evidence undermining Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Although subjective symptoms cannot be rejected on the sole ground that they are not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s expressed subjective symptomology. See, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). Plaintiff does not acknowledge the ALJ’s discussion on these topics or dispute its accuracy. ... Plaintiff’s activities of daily living were a clear and convincing reason for rejecting his subjective symptomology. See Valentine v. Commissioner Social Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding the ALJ satisfied the “clear and convincing” standard for an adverse credibility determination where claimant engaged in “gardening and community activities . . . evidence [which] did not suggest Valentine could return to his old job,” but “did suggest that Valentine’s later claims about the severity of his limitations were exaggerated.”).

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

Guenther v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-18(c)(2)

The law bars an ALJ from “reject[ing] a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.” ... see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2) (“[the Commission] 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.”); ... Here, the ALJ pointed to objective test results, including normal thyroid blood tests and nearly full oxygen saturation. ... However, Plaintiff did not attribute her fatigue solely to thyroid issues or oxygen deprivation. For that reason, these objective results were not inconsistent with her testimony. ... On this basis, the Government’s rejection of Plaintiff’s testimony on fatigue as inconsistent with medical evidence lacked a reasonable basis in law or fact.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the agency to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Chambers v. Saul · filed 2021-06-22(a)

First, the ALJ appropriately considered the objective medical evidence in the record in reaching her findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). Notably, Ms. Chambers’ mental status examinations during the relevant period—particularly after September 2015—were mostly unremarkable with regard to her thought content and processes, cognition, and insight and judgment. Her 2016 Continuous Performance Test yielded normal results on all indices. Her claims of worsening symptoms were temporary and corresponded to periods of significant stress.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity and disabling effects but prohibits using lack of objective support as the sole reason to discredit symptom testimony and deny benefits.

Weeks v. Saul · filed 2021-06-30(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair, 885 F.2d at 601; Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s symptom claims were inconsistent with the objective evidence. This finding is supported by substantial evidence and was a clear and convincing reason, along with the other reason offered, to discount Plaintiff’s symptom complaints. ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s symptom claims were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s conservative treatment. This finding is supported by substantial evidence and was a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s symptom complaints. Plaintiff is not entitled to remand on these grounds.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective functional findings such as joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, or motor disruption to inform the intensity and persistence of fibromyalgia symptoms, provided they are not the sole basis for rejecting the claimant’s complaints.

Berndt v. Saul · filed 2021-07-08(c)(2)

Moreover, Berndt has not shown that the objective findings cited by the ALJ can never be relevant in evaluating the severity of fibromyalgia-related symptoms. In Gebauer, the Seventh Circuit recognized that “the Social Security Administration’s guidance on how to evaluate pain (fibromyalgia’s chief symptom) directs ALJs to consider the very symptoms that the ALJ considered here.” Gebauer, 801 F. App’x at 410 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[E]vidence of reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit or motor disruption . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms.”)). And other courts, including this one, have recognized that ability-related tests can be relevant to a fibromyalgia claim. See Madrigal v. Saul, No. 19-C-1349, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75061, at *13 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2020) (“[A]n individual’s performance in physical measures of ability, such as a range-of-motion test, is at least arguably relevant to her claim of debilitating pain.”); see also Fischer v. Saul, No. 19-C-291, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52481, at *47–49 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 26, 2020) (rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ erred in relying on objective evidence and recognizing that “findings of full motor strength and function in all extremities were relevant” to the plaintiff’s fibromyalgia claim). Critically, the ALJ here did not reject Berndt’s complaints of disabling fibromyalgia-related symptoms based solely on the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting symptom statements solely because medical evidence does not corroborate them, but it does not bar discounting statements that are affirmatively inconsistent with medical or other record evidence.

Yanes v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-15(c)(2)

Yanes argues that, under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), the SSA cannot reject a claimant’s statements “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements.” But this regulation merely stands for the proposition that a claimant’s statements will not be rejected solely because the statements are not corroborated by the medical evidence—which is a very different circumstance from when the claimant’s statements are inconsistent with the medical or other evidence of record. ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in considering the inconsistencies between Yanes’s testimony and the evidence and in discrediting much of his testimony on that basis.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence and medical-source information to inform symptom severity and disabling effects, but prohibits using lack of objective support as the sole ground for rejecting symptom testimony.

Mitchell v. Saul · filed 2021-07-16(c)(2)

However, an ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; Bunnell, 947 F.2d 341, 346–47; Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989). The objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that “claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [her] symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” AR 33. While Plaintiff may disagree with the ALJ’s findings, the ALJ provided a rational interpretation of the objective medical evidence as inconsistent with Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. The Court must defer to that interpretation.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires consideration of obtained objective medical evidence and does not limit that evidence to material produced by a source whose medical opinion the ALJ adopts.

Linam v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-11(c)(2)

The authority that does exist required the ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating a medical opinion, irrespective of source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(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.”). The regulations impose no requirement that objective medical evidence must be produced only by a source whose opinion the ALJ adopts and the Court declines to impose such a requirement.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to the severity and disabling effects of pain but does not permit subjective pain testimony to be rejected solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it.

(SS) Rubio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-12(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). ... The ALJ offered nothing to bridge the gap between 1) his analytically disengaged factual recitation, and 2) his boilerplate conclusion that Plaintiff’s testimony was unsupported. Accordingly, the ALJ erred. ... Nevertheless, there is no basis to find harmful error here. ... That failure does not necessarily rise to the level of harmful error where, as here, the ALJ’s ultimate RFC does appear to account for Plaintiff’s testimony and Plaintiff does not attempt to demonstrate otherwise.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) forbids rejecting a claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence, or work effects of symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, but allows discounting supported by additional evidence such as daily activities.

Conner v. Saul · filed 2021-08-12(c)(2)

“According to the regulations, the ALJ ‘will not reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [the claimant’s] symptoms have on [his] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements.’” Lewis, 858 F.3d at 866 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2)). The ALJ, therefore, is required to make a finding regarding a claimant’s credibility and should specifically refer to the evidence supporting that finding, Hammond vy. Heckler, 765 F.2d 424, 426 (4th Cir. 1985) (per curiam), but the ALJ cannot discount Plaintiffs subjective evidence of pain solely based on objective medical findings, Lewis, 858 F.3d at 866 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2)). ... While the ALJ impermissibly relied on some objective medical evidence, he also relied on sufficient subjective evidence to find that Plaintiff was not credible. ... Thus, the ALJ’s detailed evaluation of the record evidence against Plaintiffs statements regarding his symptoms amply supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff's alleged limitations were not entirely credible, and the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's credibility, supporting his findings with substantial evidence consistent with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects but does not permit denying benefits solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of symptoms.

Shafer v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-24(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair, 885 F.2d at 601; Burch, 400 F.3d at 680. However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s symptom claims are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. This finding is supported by substantial evidence and was a clear and convincing reason, along with the other reason offered, to discount Plaintiff’s symptom complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects, but prohibits denying benefits solely because objective evidence does not support the degree of symptoms alleged.

Donovan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-08(c)(2)

As to the intensity, duration, frequency, and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s symptoms, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff’s allegations of extreme and debilitating limitations were not well supported by the objective evidence or Plaintiff’s admitted daily activities. Tr. 26. An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989); Burch, 400 F.3d at 680. However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence a useful indicator when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms and pain.

WOODS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-08(c)(2)

Indeed, “[o]bjective medical evidence ‘is a useful indicator’ to assist the Commissioner in evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms and pain.” Morales, 799 F. App'x at 677 (concluding that the ALJ’s credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence where “the ALJ noted that [plaintiff] underwent numerous forms of imaging with unremarkable results[],” the ALJ gave little weight to various doctors’ conclusions of disability, and “gave great weight to the agency experts”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits comparison of alleged symptom restrictions with objective and other evidence but does not allow rejection solely for lack of objective corroboration.

Fulmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-13(c)(4)

“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, an ALJ properly considers whether the medical evidence supports or is consistent with a claimant’s allegations. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (symptoms are determined to diminish capacity for basic work activities only to the extent the alleged functional limitations and restrictions “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence”).

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of all available evidence and bars rejecting symptom complaints solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them, while permitting objective evidence to be considered with other record evidence.

Sorensen v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-14(c)

The ALJ must consider all of the available evidence, including ‘medical history, objective medical evidence, and statements by Plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The ALJ identified the medical record and Plaintiff's own testimony about her abilities to support his conclusion that Plaintiff's impairments were not severe. Objective medical evidence was far from being the sole factor that the ALJ weighed in making his decision. In doing so, the ALJ built “an accurate and logical bridge” from Plaintiff's evidence—both objective and subjective—to his conclusion. Woods, 888 F.3d at 694.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to symptom severity but forbids denying benefits solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of symptoms.

Ocampo v. O'Malley · filed 2021-09-15(c)(2)

The medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s pain testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of pain alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective evidence to be considered with medical-source information when assessing symptom severity but forbids using lack of objective support as the sole basis for denial.

Toppen v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-15(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989); Burch, 400 F.3d at 680. However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(2) requires consideration of both objective and other evidence and prohibits discounting the intensity of pain solely because objective findings do not corroborate it.

Bennett v. Saul · filed 2021-09-15(a), (c)(2)

First, while “there need not be objective evidence of . . . pain [resulting from a medically determinable impairment],” Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1989), an ALJ properly considers “all [a claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit held remand was appropriate because the plaintiff’s “subjective evidence of pain intensity [could not] be discounted solely based on objective medical findings.” Id. at 866 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)). In this case, the ALJ supported her conclusions with respect to the limiting effects of plaintiff’s pain in part by discussing the medical evidence. See Tr. 16–21. ... The ALJ also cited evidence that plaintiff experienced “only a mild limitation in [his] activities of daily living and overall functioning.” Tr. 18 (citing Tr. 421). Thus, unlike in Lewis, here the ALJ did not find plaintiff’s statements incredible solely based the lack of objective evidence corroborating them. See 858 F.3d at 866. Remand is therefore inappropriate.

Sections 404.1529(b) and (c)(2) do not require diagnostic imaging to establish a medically determinable impairment because medically acceptable clinical evidence includes reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, or motor disruption.

Zima v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-16(b), (c)(2)

A medically determinable impairment does not require diagnostic imaging. The Social Security Regulations require that impairments “must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.921. “Medical signs and laboratory findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, must show the existence of medical impairment(s) which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). “[M]edically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” include “evidence of reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit or motor disruption.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Dr. Gupta found that there was reduced motion as well as tenderness in Ms. Zima’s lumbar and left hip, which was objective evidence substantiating his finding of sedentary limitations. Therefore, the fact that there was not imaging does not constitute a good explanation for discounting Dr. Gupta’s conclusion.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity and disabling effects but prohibits rejecting subjective pain testimony solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it.

Conn v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-16(c)(2)

The ALJ’s conclusion about Plaintiff’s improvement with treatment is supported by substantial evidence and is a clear and convincing reason to discount his testimony related to his physical symptoms See Orteza, 50 F.3d at 750 (“Factors that the adjudicator may consider when making such credibility determinations include the . . . effectiveness or adverse side effects of any pain medication.”); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (claimant's testimony undermined by the fact he responded well to conservative treatment). The record shows significant improvement in Plaintiff’s back issues. It also demonstrates improvement in Plaintiff’s strength, gait, and other neurological symptoms. As described above, and in his opinion, the ALJ also properly relied on the objective medical evidence as grounds for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony related to his physical symptoms. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant's pain and its disabling effects. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to be considered when evaluating symptoms such as pain.

Hammond v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-20(c)(2)

These treatment notes, state agency reviewer opinions, and Plaintiff’s self-reported activities all constitute substantial evidence on which the ALJ could rely to conclude that no further limitations were warranted in connection with Plaintiff’s upper extremities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2) (objective medical evidence is to be considered in evaluating symptoms, including pain); 404.1513a(b) (ALJs are required to consider findings by state agency medical consultants). And although Plaintiff cites other record evidence that may have supported a more limited RFC, “[a]s long as substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, we must defer to it, even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.” Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) evaluates symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against objective and other evidence; objective evidence cannot be the sole basis for the assessment but may be considered with daily activities and other evidence.

Gore v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-22(c)(4)

Once an ALJ identifies an underlying medical condition that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ evaluates the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms in relations to the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... While an ALJ may “not evaluate an individual’s symptoms based solely on objective medical evidence” SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4 (October 25, 2017) (emphasis added), it is still the ALJ’s duty to evaluate “the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence in the individual’s record.” Id. at *2. As discussed above, the ALJ considered not only the objective medical findings in considering Ms. Gore’s subjective testimony, but also the consistency of Ms. Gore’s own descriptions of her daily activities. (R. at 21–22). It was thus proper for the ALJ to consider the lack of supporting objective evidence when evaluating Ms. Gore’s subjective testimony.

Section 404.1529(a)–(c) uses a two-step symptom framework: objective evidence must establish an impairment capable of causing the symptoms, but subjective evidence alone may establish their severity, persistence, and limiting effects at the second step.

Brooks v. Saul · filed 2021-09-24(a)-(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). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled. SSR 16-3p recognizes that “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 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. ... Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, [her] statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.” R. at 14. As noted above, there does not need to be objective evidence of the claimant’s pain itself or its intensity. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95. Rather, the claimant is entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the second part of the test above. Id. In other words, “disability claimants are entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the severity, persistence, and limiting effects of their symptoms.” Id. at 98. “Thus, [the ALJ] ‘improperly increased [Plaintiff’s] burden of proof’ by effectively requiring her subjective descriptions of her symptoms to be supported by objective medical evidence.” Id. at 96 (quoting Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 866 (4th Cir. 2017)). Moreover, to the extent that the ALJ stated that he considered other evidence, “ALJs apply an incorrect legal standard by requiring objective evidence of symptoms even when they also consider other evidence in the record.” Id. at 97. The Court thus remands on this ground as well.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)–(3) permits comparison of symptom testimony with objective medical evidence, but a lack of objective support cannot alone justify discounting the testimony and may do so only when coupled with other permissible reasons.

Mitchell v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-27(c)(1)-(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. A lack of objective medical evidence may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. Tammy S. v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:17-cv-01562-HZ, 2018 WL 5924505, at *4 (D. Or. Nov. 10, 2018) (citing Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he Commissioner may not discredit [a] claimant’s testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence.”)). However, when coupled with other permissible reasons, inconsistencies between a claimant’s allegations and objective medical evidence may be used to discount a claimant’s testimony. Tatyana K. v. Berryhill, No. 3:17-cv-01816-AC, 2019 WL 464965, at *4 (D. Or. Feb. 6, 2019) (citing Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2004)). ... For these reasons, the ALJ improperly rejected plaintiff’s CFS testimony based on inconsistency with the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting pain testimony solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of pain, while permitting medical evidence to inform symptom severity and disabling effects.

Ekstedt v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-28(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s pain testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of pain alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair, 885 F.2d at 601. However, the medical evidence is a relevant ant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). In addition, a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant's complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008); see Warre v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits). The lack of corroboration of Plaintiff’s claimed limitations by the medical evidence, including evidence of improvement with medication, was a clear, convincing, and unchallenged reason for the ALJ to discount Plaintiff’s symptom claims.

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

Gregory v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-17(c)(2)

An ALJ may not consider only objective medical evidence in determining disability unless this evidence alone supports a finding of disability. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5 (“If we cannot make a disability determination or decision that is fully favorable based solely on objective medical evidence, then we carefully consider other evidence in the record in reaching a conclusion about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects but prohibits denying benefits solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of symptoms.

Draggoo v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-23(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346–47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Objective medical evidence is a useful indicator of the intensity, persistence, and effects of a claimant’s symptoms, although the symptom assessment must rest on more than objective evidence alone.

Hansen v. Saul · filed 2022-07-05(c)(2)

Accordingly, the ALJ’s determination is supported by more than objective medical evidence, keeping in mind that objective medical evidence is a useful indicator about the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and the effect of those symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

An ALJ may not reject subjective pain testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it, but objective medical evidence remains relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects.

Villapudua v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-07(c)(2)

And although Villapudua’s “subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms and their reasonable consistency with objective evidence—medical signs and laboratory findings—and other medical, historical, and treatment evidence.

Calhoun v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-19

Adjudicators, as the regulations dictate (i.e., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529), are to consider 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. Id. 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. “Other evidence,” again as the regulations define, includes evidence from medical sources, medical history, and statements about treatment the claimant has received. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(b)(2)-(6). ... On this record, the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain is supported by substantial evidence.

Subjective pain testimony may not be rejected solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it, although medical evidence remains relevant to the severity and disabling effects of pain.

(SS) Lewandowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-21(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

An ALJ may not reject statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or work effects solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Rivers v. Saul · filed 2022-07-22(c)(2)

However, the Commissioner “will not reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his or her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [his or her] symptoms have on [his or her] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his or her] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... Here, the ALJ’s rejection of Plaintiff’s complaints based on her parttime coursework and ability to drive, (R. 24), was supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity and persistence solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Bilbay v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-03(c)(2)

With the ALJ finding that both opinions are not persuasive, it seems he relies only on the objective medical evidence when determining that the Claimant allegations of his pain are not sufficient. (Tr. 21-22). This basis alone is not enough to reject the Claimant’s statements regarding his pain level. Id.; See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms . . . solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected solely for lack of full objective corroboration, although medical evidence remains relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-04(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Burch, 400 F.3d at 680–81; Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

An ALJ may not reject symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them and must consider other evidence unless objective evidence alone supports a fully favorable decision.

Singleton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-04(c)(2)

An ALJ may not consider only objective medical evidence in determining disability unless this evidence alone supports a finding of disability. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5 (“If we cannot make a disability determination or decision that is fully favorable based solely on objective medical evidence, then we carefully consider other evidence in the record in reaching a conclusion about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”).

An ALJ may not reject statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or work effects solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Pressnall v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-08-18(c)(2)

An ALJ “will not reject [the claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [those] symptoms have” on the claimant’s ability to work “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [those] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Objective medical evidence may be considered, but an ALJ cannot reject symptom severity solely because objective evidence does not support it.

Vazquez v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-18(c)(2)

However, the ALJ cannot reject a claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of their symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not support it. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”) (emphasis added).

Subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected solely for lack of full objective corroboration, though medical evidence remains relevant to severity and disabling effects.

Hevelone v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-22(c)(2)

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

Objective medical evidence is relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects but cannot be the sole basis for discrediting symptom testimony.

Race v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-01(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Objective medical evidence is a useful indicator of symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Bullard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-09(c)(2)

The ALJ specifically considered the objective medical evidence, which he found was not entirely consistent with the alleged severity of Plaintiff’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms . . . may have on your ability to work.”).

Subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected solely for lack of full objective corroboration, although medical evidence remains relevant to severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Medina v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-12(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Objective medical evidence may be considered when evaluating symptom testimony but cannot be the sole basis for discounting it.

Phillips v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-20(c)(1)-(3)

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

Subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected solely for lack of full objective corroboration, although medical evidence remains relevant to severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Venedicto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-28(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical findings to inform reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of alleged symptoms.

Blevins-Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(c)(2)

Further, it is well-established that an ALJ may reasonably discount a claimant’s subjective complaints on the grounds that the objective medical evidence does not support those complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform conclusions about symptom intensity and persistence, but prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Schwartz v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-31(c)(2)

In particular, objective medical evidence “is a useful indicator . . . in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms, such as pain.” 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(2). That said, an ALJ cannot “reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [] symptoms . . . solely because the available medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements.” Id. (emphasis added).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejection of subjective symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate the alleged severity or work effects.

(SS) Shade v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-31(c)(2)

Importantly, ALJ’s “may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect our symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). Thus, the absence of legitimate reasons to discount plaintiff’s testimony outside of any discussion of the objective medical evidence is an error that independently warrants remand.

Objective medical evidence remains relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects, but lack of corroboration cannot be the sole ground for rejecting subjective testimony.

(SS) Howard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-31(c)(2)

Subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits relying only on objective medical evidence to deny a claim unless that evidence alone supports a favorable disability finding, and otherwise requires careful consideration of other symptom evidence.

Stanko v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-05(c)(2)

An ALJ may not consider only objective medical evidence in determining disability unless this evidence alone supports a finding of disability. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5 (“If we cannot make a disability determination or decision that is fully favorable based solely on objective medical evidence, then we carefully consider other evidence in the record in reaching a conclusion about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits lack of corroborating objective medical evidence to be considered as one factor in assessing pain severity but forbids rejecting subjective pain testimony solely on that basis.

Kemp v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-13(c)(2)

While an ALJ may also consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant's pain,” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001), they cannot reject subjective pain testimony solely on that basis. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) recognizes that pain may be more severe than objective evidence alone shows and prohibits rejecting statements about pain or other symptoms' limiting effects solely for lack of objective substantiation.

Parish v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-18(c)(2)-(3)

Pain can “sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). For that reason, the Commissioner should not reject a claimant’s statements about pain or the limiting effects of her other symptoms “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the] statements.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats objective medical evidence as a useful indicator for reasonably assessing symptom intensity, persistence, and effects on the ability to work.

Timberlake v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of SSA · filed 2023-05-11(c)(2)

The medical evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff was not disabled, and it provided substantial evidence to discount Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (objective medical evidence “is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on your ability to work”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence useful in assessing symptom intensity and persistence but bars rejecting symptom statements solely because medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Schmoock v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-05-19(c)(2)

In particular, objective medical evidence “is a useful indicator . . . in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms, such as pain.” 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(2). That said, an ALJ cannot “reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [] symptoms . . . solely because the available medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements.” Id. (emphasis added).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them and requires careful consideration of other evidence unless objective evidence alone supports a fully favorable decision.

Arden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-14(c)(2)

An ALJ may not consider only objective medical evidence in determining disability unless this evidence alone supports a finding of disability. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”).

Objective medical evidence remains relevant to symptom severity, but cannot be the sole ground for rejecting subjective testimony.

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

Subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining ... the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats objective medical evidence as a useful indicator for reasonable conclusions about symptom intensity, persistence, and effects.

Gigliotti v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-26(c)(2)

The ALJ cited medical evidence and opinions, which she found persuasive, that did not reflect the limitations suggested by Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Id. at 21-25; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect of those symptoms.”).

Objective medical evidence may be considered in evaluating symptom severity but cannot be the sole ground for rejecting subjective testimony.

(SS) Abitia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-31(c)(2)

Subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom evaluation but forbids a negative finding solely because objective evidence does not affirmatively substantiate the testimony.

Hameed v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-10(c)(2)

It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.”

Medical evidence remains relevant to symptom severity but cannot be the sole basis for rejecting subjective complaints.

Marks v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-19(c)(2)

“[A]n ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain[,]” Burch, 400 F.3d at 680 (citing Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir.1991)), but “the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity but bars rejecting subjective testimony solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it.

(SS) Ruby Ann Meneley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-03(c)(2)

Subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits considering objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom severity and disabling effects but does not permit rejecting subjective testimony solely for lack of full objective corroboration.

(SS)Keo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-22(c)(2)

Subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully 25 corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in 26 determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 27 28 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

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

Wisnesky v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-16(c)(2)

Although an ALJ may consider whether the alleged symptoms are consistent with the medical evidence as one factor in his evaluation, the ALJ may not disregard a claimant's testimony “solely because it is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). For these reasons, the ALJ has not set forth clear and convincing reasons to discount Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars the Commissioner from rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptoms and their effects solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, although lack of corroboration may be considered as one factor.

Kibby v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-18(c)(2)

While an ALJ may also consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain,” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001), they cannot reject subjective pain testimony solely on that basis. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) permits an ALJ to compare a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony with objective medical evidence, but lack of objective support cannot be the sole basis for discounting that testimony.

Miller v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-24(c)(1)-(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits an ALJ from rejecting a claimant’s pain testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate the alleged severity of the pain.

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

An ALJ “may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.” Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) directs adjudicators to evaluate objective medical evidence when considering a claimant's symptom allegations.

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

The ALJ is instructed to evaluate objective evidence in considering a claimant’s symptom allegations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence ... is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms[.]”). ... Here, the ALJ reasonably concluded that plaintiff’s symptom allegations were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and supported this conclusion with substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when assessing the severity and disabling effects of symptoms, but does not permit rejecting symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it.

(SS) Fane v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-03(c)(2)

The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s symptom testimony was inconsistent with the objective medical findings in the record. (AR 23, 25.) The determination that a claimant’s complaints are inconsistent with clinical evaluations can satisfy the requirement of stating a clear and convincing reason for discrediting the claimant’s testimony. Regennitter v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1999). The ALJ properly considered this evidence in weighing Plaintiff’s credibility. “While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). ... Substantial evidence in the record supports that ALJ’s findings that the objective medical findings do not support his allegations that he is unable to work due to his mental impairments and hearing things. (AR 347, 349, 351, 353, 355, 357, 396, 400, 402.) Rather a review of the record reveals substantial evidence that despite his auditory hallucinations, Plaintiff’s mental examinations were relatively normal.

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

Matthews v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-09(c)(2)

While an ALJ may also consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain,” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001), they cannot reject subjective pain testimony solely on that basis. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s rejection of plaintiff’s testimony concerning her right arm tremor and atrophy as inconsistent with the medical records was not supported by substantial evidence.

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

Lares v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-25(c)(2)

While an ALJ may also consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain,” Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857, they cannot reject subjective pain testimony solely on that basis. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). ... In sum, the ALJ’s rejection of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony based on his activities of daily living, work activity, improvement with treatment, and the objective medical evidence was not supported by specific, clear and convincing reasons.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider a lack of corroborating objective medical evidence when assessing symptom severity, but prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Thompson v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2024-11-14(c)(2)

An ALJ may consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as a “relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s” alleged symptoms. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ may not, however, “discredit the claimant’s testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective evidence.” Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2), (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider normal examination results when evaluating the intensity and persistence of alleged symptoms.

Turbyfill v. Colvin · filed 2024-12-04(c)(2)

This was not an instance of impermissible cherry-picking, nor was it error for the ALJ to consider Plaintiff’s normal lung exam results in discounting the extent of Plaintiff’s alleged limitations. (ECF No. 16 at 17); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (stating that an ALJ will consider this type of objective medical evidence in evaluating symptom intensity and persistence).

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

Westmoreland v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-04(c)(2)

While an ALJ may also consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain,” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001), they cannot reject subjective pain testimony solely on that basis. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when assessing the severity and disabling effects of alleged symptoms, but lack of objective support cannot be the sole basis for discounting subjective testimony.

Mills v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-09(c)(2)

While an ALJ may not discount subjective testimony only because it is not supported by objective medical evidence, such medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of a plaintiff’s pain and its disabling effects. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars the Commissioner from rejecting a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, or work-related effects of symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Hickman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-16(c)(2)

While an ALJ may also consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain,” Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857, they cannot reject subjective pain testimony solely on that basis. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). ... The ALJ first noted that the medical record contained no objective evidence of Plaintiff’s blackouts, Tr. 54, but absence of corroborating evidence is not a sufficient basis (on its own) to discount symptom testimony.