20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit an ALJ to reject a claimant’s symptom testimony based solely on the absence of corroborating objective medical evidence.

Goggil v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-17(c)(2)

Conflict with objective medical evidence is a sufficient basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony, but an absence of corroborating medical evidence is not enough, on its own, to reject a claimant’s symptom testimony. Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498; Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence, or its absence, together with other evidence, but not to discount a claimant’s symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not support them.

Evans v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-18(c)(2)

In other cases, the ALJ may consider that objective evidence, or lack thereof, along with other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(2). In any case, the ALJ may not rely solely on the lack of objective medical evidence to discredit a claimant’s subjective statements. Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits the Commissioner to consider a lack of corroborating objective medical evidence but forbids rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or work effects solely for that reason.

Prentiss v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-20(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) does not permit an ALJ to reject a claimant’s symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not corroborate it.

Stroops v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-31(c)(2)

The absence of corroborating objective medical evidence alone is not sufficient to reject a claimant’s symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5; Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 679 (citing Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006)).

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(2) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s symptom testimony and the objective medical evidence when deciding whether to discount that testimony.

Collins v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-14(c)(1)-(2)

As discussed above, the ALJ discounted the severity of Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms based on objective medical evidence in the record. See Young v. Saul, 845 F. App’x 518, 520 (9th Cir. 2021) (“An ALJ may consider inconsistency between a claimant’s symptom testimony and the objective medical evidence in the record in determining whether to discount the claimant’s symptom testimony.” (first citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(2); and then citing Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012))). ... The Court concludes that the inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and the objective medical evidence in the record, including conservative treatment, was a clear and convincing reason to discount her testimony and was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) requires objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source showing a medical impairment; a claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms alone do not establish disability.

Ritchie v. Dudek · filed 2025-02-10(a)

A claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms ... alone does not establish disability. Rather, there “must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows … a medical impairment(s).”

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

Lacy v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-07(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”).

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical signs and laboratory findings to establish an impairment reasonably capable of producing the alleged pain or other symptoms.

Willoughby v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-17(b)

This does not amount to objective medical evidence of SSD, and therefore Plaintiff’s medical records do not show the medically determinable impairment of SSD. An ALJ is not required to discuss SSD in every case where a claimant’s medical records contain some evidence of a general psychological aspect to the claimant’s pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (“Medical signs and laboratory findings . . . must show the existence of a medical impairment(s) . . . which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.”); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ’s decision should be upheld.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (c)(4) bar an ALJ from rejecting symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, but permit the ALJ to discount statements that conflict with the objective evidence and the rest of the record.

Moorman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-27(c)(2), (c)(4)

The ALJ may not, however, “discredit the claimant’s testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective evidence.” Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). Nevertheless, an ALJ may discount a claimant’s testimony where it is inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. See Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding the ALJ’s rejection of [the claimant]’s testimony, in part, because it conflicted with the objective evidence); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (explaining that ALJs “consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are conflicts between [a claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence, including . . . the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by [] medical sources”). The ALJ properly relied on objective medical evidence in discounting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) directs an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom reports.

Bishop v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-31(c)(2)

And insofar as Ms. Bishop may be suggesting that the ALJ should not have considered her medical reports in considering her subjective allegations, the law does not support her. Under the regulations, the ALJ is specifically directed to consider a claimant’s objective medical records in considering her subjective reports. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[S]ubjective complaints need not be accepted insofar as they clash with other, objective medical evidence in the record.”); Getch v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 473, 483 (7th Cir. 2008) (“discrepancies between objective evidence and self-reports may suggest symptom exaggeration”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms, but it may not be the sole basis for rejecting the claimant’s testimony.

(SS) Saur v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-23(c)(2)

Plaintiff is correct that an ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of impairment alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, 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). Here, as discussed below, the ALJ gave additional reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Plaintiff’s symptom claims. ... The lack of corroboration of Plaintiff’s claimed limitations by the objective evidence was a clear, convincing, and unchallenged reason for the ALJ to discount Plaintiff’s symptom claims.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms, but an ALJ may not reject pain testimony solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of pain.

(SS) Vertner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-09(c)(2)

The medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... However, regardless of whether the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff’s symptom claims were not corroborated by objective evidence, it is well-settled in the Ninth Circuit that 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) (emphasis added); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989).

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.

Lal v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-14(c)(2)

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, 81 F.3d at 834); see also Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883 (holding that an ALJ may not disregard subjective symptom testimony “solely because it is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence”); 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) does not permit an ALJ to reject a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, or work-related effects of symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

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

Here, the remaining evidence supporting the ALJ’s symptoms analysis under SSR 16-3p consists of Mr. Heenan’s largely normal mental-status examinations. The regulations do not permit the ALJ to reject a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of 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), 416.929(c)(2). Thus, the ALJ’s errors are not harmless, and the case must be remanded. Ulman, 693 F.3d at 714.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount subjective symptom testimony when it conflicts with objective medical evidence.

Harmon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-04(c)(2)

The ALJ did, however, cite clear and convincing reasons to discount Plaintiff’s mental health symptom testimony on the basis that it conflicted with objective medical evidence. See Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498 (holding conflict with objective medical evidence can be a sufficient basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... The ALJ reasonably concluded that objective medical evidence conflicted with plaintiff’s testimony about mental health symptoms, and therefore provided a clear and convincing reason to discount this testimony.

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

(SS) Mora v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-12(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an ALJ to evaluate objective medical evidence when assessing a claimant’s symptom allegations, but a lack of supporting objective evidence alone is insufficient to discount the claimant’s testimony.

Buoy v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-03(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[.]”). The lack of supporting objective medical evidence is insufficient, by itself, to justify discounting a claimant’s testimony. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s first rationale for discrediting plaintiff’s symptom allegations—that they were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence—meets the clear-and-convincing threshold.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) permits an ALJ to consider whether subjective symptom testimony is consistent with objective medical evidence, but a lack of objective medical evidence cannot be the sole basis for discounting that testimony.

Swift v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-07(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. The lack of objective medical evidence may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. ... Here, the ALJ cited to progress notes from March 20, May 8, and August 6, 2015, to illustrate inconsistencies between plaintiff’s medical record and subjective symptom testimony. Tr. 23, 224, 1418,1457, 1459, 1996. However, these inconsistencies are either mischaracterized, out of context, or misunderstood. Tr. 23. Therefore, this was not a clear and convincing reason to reject plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

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

(SS) Mahorne v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-30(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence a relevant factor, together with medical-source information about pain and other symptoms, in determining the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Brown v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-31(c)(2)

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). ... The ALJ’s discussion of objective evidence and findings in these records is not an accurate reflection of the records cited; the ALJ left out relevant findings and selectively cited portions of the records showing milder findings while failing to discuss objective evidence that supported Plaintiff’s symptom reports, including ongoing/progressive MS symptoms and side effects of treatment, which are supported with objective findings including lab results. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s conclusion Plaintiff’s symptom reports were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence is not supported by substantial evidence, and this was not a clear and convincing reason to discount her symptom claims.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to compare subjective symptom complaints with objective medical evidence, but not to demand objective evidence corroborating those complaints.

Slaubaugh v. O'Malley · filed 2025-07-31(c)(2)

The ALJ comported with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and Arakas, as they did not require Plaintiff to produce “objective evidence” to corroborate subjective complaints of her pain. ... The ALJ also considered that Plaintiff “performed grocery shopping, cooking, laundry, and house cleaning with her husband.” Tr. 1320. ... As such, I find that the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s symptoms related to her mental impairments.

A diagnosis alone is not objective medical evidence under Section 404.1529(c)(2); objective evidence must result from medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic techniques.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-07(c)(2)

A diagnosis does not constitute objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (providing that objective medical evidence is evidence obtained from the application of medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques, such as evidence of reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, or motor disruption).

Subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) require consideration of the full record rather than reliance solely on objective medical evidence when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Higgins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-05(c)(1)-(2)

The ad- ministrative law judge then considered Higgins’s subjective testi- mony about her pain by looking at all the evidence in the record, including the objective medical evidence and her daily activities and medical treatments, instead of relying solely on the objective medical evidence.

Subsection (c)(2) permits discounting subjective symptom evidence when it is inconsistent with the entire record, but not solely because objective evidence is lacking.

Roach v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-08(c)(2)

The Magistrate Judge properly found that the ALJ did not disregard the subjective evidence solely because of a lack of objective evidence but rather because the subjective evidence was inconsistent with the entire case record.

Subsections (c)(2) through (c)(4) permit an ALJ to discount subjective complaints based on their inconsistency with daily activities, treatment, and medical opinions, so long as lack of objective corroboration is not the sole reason.

Luna v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-08-29(c)(2)-(4)

However, the ALJ did not reject Luna’s subjective complaints solely for that reason. The ALJ also relied upon an assessment of other factors the regulations endorse, including the consistency of Luna’s subjective complaints with her daily activities, the treatment she received, and the medical opinion evidence.

Subsection (c)(2) forbids rejecting subjective symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not corroborate it.

Lonnberg v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-03(c)(2)

Here, the ALJ erred by rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony based solely on a lack of corroborating objective medical evidence, and by merely summarizing the objective medical evidence.

Subsection (c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to undercut subjective symptom testimony when the ALJ does not rely on lack of corroboration alone.

Cameron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-05(c)(2)

But the ALJ did not rely solely on the absence of medical evidence supporting a greater frequency of seizures; she relied on Dr. Murthy’s report.

Subsection (c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to symptom intensity and persistence but forbids relying on lack of objective support alone to discredit testimony.

Marc E. v. Bisignano · filed 2025-10-17(c)(2)

But because the same objective condition can produce a wide array of subjective symptoms, ALJs cannot rely on this reason alone to discredit symptom testimony.

Subsection (c) does not permit an ALJ to discount pain by imposing unsupported medical assumptions about which objective signs must accompany chronic severe pain.

Gardner · filed 2025-10-21(c)

The ALJ cited no opinion or medical authority for her assumption that medical evidence needed to demonstrate muscle atrophy, spasm, rigidity, or tremor to find consistency with chronic, severe pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence when assessing symptom severity, but a claimant’s subjective testimony cannot be rejected solely because that evidence does not fully corroborate it.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-12-08(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)).

Subsection 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to be considered in assessing symptom severity but forbids rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Normandy · filed 2026-01-07(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”).

Subsection 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting symptom testimony solely for lack of objective corroboration, but medical evidence that contradicts rather than merely fails to support the testimony may itself justify discounting it.

Blose v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-01-13(c)(2)

“The fact that a [plaintiff’s] testimony is not fully corroborated by the objective medical findings, in and `o f itself, is not a clear and convincing reason for rejecting it.” Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). Rather, where a plaintiff’s symptom testimony is not fully substantiated by the objective medical record, the ALJ must provide additional reasons for discounting the testimony. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). ... In citing to medical evidence contradicting Plaintiff’s statements, the ALJ supported the rejection of Plaintiff’s symptom testimony regarding worsened abdominal pain, diarrhea, and constipation with clear and convincing evidence. See Hairston, 827 Fed. App’x at 773.

Section 404.1529 bars disregarding a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate the alleged degree of symptoms.

Stoker · filed 2026-01-15(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and as restated in Soc. Sec. Rul. 16-3p, “we will not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged by the individual.” 2017 WL 5180304, at *5.

Section 404.1529 bars disregarding a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate the alleged degree of symptoms.

Lucas · filed 2026-01-15(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and as restated in Soc. Sec. Rul. 16-3p, “we will not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged by the individual.” 2017 WL 5180304, at *5.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting subjective testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it, while allowing that evidence to remain relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects.

Keeney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2026-01-15(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)).

Subsections 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) make objective medical evidence a useful but nonexclusive indicator of symptom severity; an ALJ must consider other submitted information and may not reject symptom statements solely for lack of objective substantiation.

Pirtle · filed 2026-03-04(c)(2)-(3)

Under the regulations, ALJs are instructed to consider objective medical evidence “a useful indicator” of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and the effect of the symptoms on her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). But the regulations recognize that “symptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Thus, an ALJ should “carefully consider any other information [a claimant] may submit about [her] symptoms,” id., and may not reject statements about the intensity or persistence of the symptoms “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [her] statements,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Subsection 404.1529(c)(2) treats objective medical evidence as a useful indicator of symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects, but bars evaluating symptoms solely on that evidence unless it supports a disability finding.

Lemmon · filed 2026-03-05(c)(2)

However, the Agency “will not evaluate an individual’s symptoms based solely on objective medical evidence unless the objective medical evidence supports a finding that the individual is disabled.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5; see 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). This type of evidence “is a useful indicator to assist . . . 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); see SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating pain to consider objective clinical findings such as limited range of motion, positive straight-leg raising tests, and observed pain behavior.

Kline · filed 2026-03-06(c)(2)

But the regulations specifically require the ALJ to consider such objective medical findings when evaluating the Plaintiff’s pain.

Section 404.1529 recognizes that subjective symptoms cannot always be verified with objective medical evidence.

Taylor, Laurie v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-04-12

Long’s observation is consistent with the principle, recognized in many appellate decisions and in Social Security regulations, that subjective symptoms cannot always be verified with objective medical evidence. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 449 F.3d 804, 806 (7th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p. But the ALJ used Long’s appropriate observation as a reason to discount Long’s assessment of Taylor’s symptoms.

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

Bayley v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(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.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence alongside other evidence when evaluating symptoms, but not to reject subjective statements solely for lack of objective support.

Evans v. Saul · filed 2022-03-14(c)

In other cases, the ALJ may consider that objective evidence, or lack thereof, in conjunction with other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). In any case, the ALJ may not rely solely on the lack of objective medical evidence to discredit a claimant’s subjective statements. Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Thomas v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-16(c)(2)

The ALJ may not, however, reject subjective 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) permits consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms, but a lack of supporting evidence alone does not justify discounting symptom testimony.

Fuller v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-24(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) allows objective medical evidence to be considered when evaluating the severity of alleged symptoms.

Reyes v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-24(c)(2)

These largely normal findings, together with medical opinions assessing Plaintiff as capable of at least light work, supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s sleep disturbances were overstated. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in evaluating the severity of pain); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

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

Sim · filed 2025-10-14(c)(2)

The ALJ may not, however, “discredit the claimant’s testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective evidence.” ... 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 consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, but lack of corroboration cannot be the sole reason for rejecting a claimant’s statements.

Cook · filed 2025-10-14(c)(2)

First, the ALJ properly found that Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms were not supported by the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence of this type 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.”). This could not be the ALJ’s sole reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s statements about symptoms, but it was a factor the ALJ was required to consider.

Section 404.1529 requires medical signs or laboratory findings showing a condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged pain.

Scarlata v. Schweiker · filed 1982-03-08

Indeed; the pertinent agency regulation requires only a showing of medical signs or laboratory findings “that there is a medical condition that could be reasonably expected to produce” the pain of which the claimant complains. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s spinal deformities, coupled with the medical evidence that plaintiff also suffers from osteoarthritis, could reasonably be expected to produce pain equivalent to that alleged by plaintiff.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of medical opinions identifying a condition reasonably expected to produce pain.

Oliver T. REINHART, Jr., Appellant, v. SECRETARY, HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee · filed 1984-05-04

The AU, in denying Reinhart’s claim for benefits, failed properly to consider the uncontradicted medical opinions of four physicians who determined that Reinhart suffers from a medical condition that could be reasonably expected to produce pain.

Section 404.1529 requires a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably cause reported pain; thermography findings and an arthritis diagnosis can establish that impairment.

Tenuta v. Heckler · filed 1985-04-16

When coupled with the apparently uncontested fact that the plaintiff suffers from degenerative cervical arthritis, the results of the thermogram plainly establish the existence of some medically determinable impairment, as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1528 & 404.-1529, see supra at 626-627.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical findings of an impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s pain; the medical evidence need not establish the full degree of pain claimed.

Hammock v. Otis Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant · filed 1989-02-09

The claimant must submit objective medical findings establishing medical impairments that “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (1982 & Supp. III 1985); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1987). ... This evidence provides a sufficient objective basis on which to establish pain.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical findings of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain.

Elizabeth J. HAMMOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis BOWEN, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Ap · filed 1989-07-03

The claimant must submit objective medical findings establishing medical impairments that “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (1982 and Supp. Ill 1985); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1987). ... This evidence provides a sufficient objective basis on which to establish pain.

Section 404.1529 requires at least some objective medical evidence of an impairment; symptoms alone cannot establish a disabling impairment.

Michael MAROLF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appel · filed 1992-12-11

Although this amendment expired of its own terms on January 1,1987, it was intended to codify a regulation that is still in effect. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Bates v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir.1990) (Wright & Wallace, JJ., concurring). Thus, proof of a disabling impairment must be supported by at least some objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits discounting a claimant’s pain complaints solely because objective medical evidence does not support them.

Mary SIEMERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1995-02-10(c)(2)

Pursuant to Polaski, an ALJ may not discount a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain solely because no objective medical evidence exists to support its existence. Id. at 1322; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires the ALJ to attempt to obtain objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms; extensive questioning and ample, consistent medical evidence can satisfy that duty.

Bass v. Comm Social Security · filed 2007-08-21(c)(2)

Alternatively, plaintiff argues that the record before the ALJ was underdeveloped, particularly because these records were not obtained, and therefore the ALJ failed in its duty to develop the record and a remand is required. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(2) (2006) (“We must always attempt to obtain objective medical evidence . . . .”). The ALJ did, however, question Mr. Bass extensively about his symptoms and abilities, and there was plenty of objective medical evidence in the record, none of which conflicted. Cf. Born v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 923 F.2d 1168, 1172 (6th Cir. 1990). Additionally, plaintiff was represented at the hearing. Cf. id. The ALJ’s development of the record was sufficient, and therefore plaintiff’s claim fails.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, but a lack of that evidence alone cannot justify discrediting them.

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-29(c)(2)

An ALJ may rely on objective medical evidence to discredit a claimant's subjective symptoms. 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 and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on your ability to work."). Still, an ALJ cannot make an adverse credibility determination based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires the ALJ to consider medical evidence such as reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, or motor disruption when evaluating allegations of pain.

Adie v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1996-08-12(c)(2)

When evaluating such allegations, the ALJ should consider the medical evidence on' the record, such as any evidence of reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, or motor disruption: See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). The ALJ, however, failed to do so.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires the agency to attempt to obtain objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms; an adequately developed record satisfies that duty.

Bass v. McMahon · filed 2007-08-21(c)(2)

See 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(2) (2006) (“We must always attempt to obtain objective medical evidence .... ”). The ALJ did, however, question Mr. Bass extensively about his symptoms and abilities, and there was plenty of objective medical evidence in the record, none of which conflicted. ... The ALJ’s development of the record was sufficient, and therefore plaintiffs claim fails.

Diagnostic evidence is part of evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms, but it cannot resolve that question alone.

Luttrell v. Astrue · filed 2011-12-23(c)(2)

While such diagnostic evidence is not alone sufficient to resolve a credibility question regarding the severity of symptoms, it is part of the equation, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(2) directs an ALJ to consider medical signs and findings when assessing the intensity, persistence, and effects of symptoms.

Kennedy v. Astrue · filed 2012-02-21(c)(1)-(2)

The ALJ considered the medical evidence and found that plaintiffs subjective allegations were not supported by the objective evidence to the extent alleged. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(l)-(2) and 416.929(c)(l)-(2) (ALJ should look at the medically documented “signs” and findings to determine the intensity and persistence of the symptoms and how they actually affect the person); Forte v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 892, 895 (8th Cir.2004) (“[L]ack of objective medical evidence is a factor an ALJ may consider.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about pain solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Rex v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-12(c)(2)

Although the ALJ did refer to a lack of objective medical evidence substantiating plaintiffs allegations of pain, this was not the only reason she provided for that determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not allow an ALJ to discredit a claimant’s account of the intensity or persistence of symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not support it.

Crow v. Colvin · filed 2014-07-28(c)(2)

Moreover, “the ALJ cannot discredit [Crow’s] testimony as to the intensity or persistence of her pain and fatigue solely based on the lack of objective medical evidence.” Snyder v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 330 Fed.Appx. 843, 848 (11th Cir.2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2), and Todd v. Heckler, 736 F.2d 641, 642 (11th Cir.1984)). Significantly, because the ALJ’s other reasons, discussed below, are not supported by substantial evidence, the lack of objective support cannot provide substantial evidence to discredit Crow’s testimony.

The agency considers objective medical evidence when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Frank v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-08(c)(2)

Second, the ALJ considered -the lack of objective medical, findings to support Plaintiffs allegations regarding the severity of his conditions. See 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(2) (agency will consider “objective medical evidence” when evaluating symptoms); Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890, 895 (8th Cir.2006) (ALJ may find claimant’s subjective pain complaints are not credible in light of objective medical evidence to the contrary).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s reported symptoms are consistent with objective medical evidence.

Stamos v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-16(c)(1)-(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider consistency with objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to assessing the severity and disabling effects of claimed symptoms.

Baez v. Saul · filed 2020-11-12(c)(2)

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.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows medical evidence to inform the severity and disabling effects of symptoms, but limited objective support cannot be the sole reason for discounting symptom testimony.

Pat v. Saul · filed 2020-11-12(c)(2)

Medical evidence is a relevant factor, however, 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). 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) permits an ALJ to consider whether symptom statements are consistent with objective medical evidence, but that evidence cannot be the sole reason for rejecting the statements.

Simpson v. Saul · filed 2020-11-12(c)(2)

It was proper for the ALJ to consider how consistent Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements were with this objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). This could not be the ALJ’s sole reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s statements about her symptoms, but it was a factor that the ALJ is permitted to consider.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider a lack of objective medical support when discounting symptom allegations if the ALJ also gives other valid reasons.

Proctor v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-19(c)(2)

Therefore, if the ALJ articulates other valid reasons for discounting the claimant’s allegations, as he did here, it is not improper to base the ... discount, in part, on a lack of support from the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires consideration of objective medical evidence but does not permit an ALJ to discount symptom testimony merely because that evidence does not support it.

Pennock v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-19(c)(2)

The ALJ may “reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of [his] symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so,” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281, and not “merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence,” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

An ALJ cannot reject a claimant’s symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate the alleged severity of the symptoms.

Costa v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-04(c)(2)

These objective medical findings cannot be the sole basis for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. See Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 345 (“[O]nce the claimant produces objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment, an adjudicator 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.”); see also SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (2011). Thus, this sole remaining reason based on the objective medical evidence, by itself, is insufficient to reject Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

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

Farnsworth v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-12-11(c)(2)

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) requires an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Hansen v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-12-22(c)

Clearly, the regulation regarding subjective pain requires the ALJ to consider objective medical evidence, such as physical examinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of whether objective medical evidence supports a claimant’s symptom statements, but a lack of support cannot be the sole reason for rejecting them.

Socorro Aide Rodriguez v. Saul · filed 2020-12-30(c)(2)

The ALJ properly considered how consistent Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements were with this objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). This could not be the ALJ’s sole reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s statements about her symptoms, but it was a factor that the ALJ was permitted to consider.

Medical evidence is a relevant factor in assessing the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Gutierrez v. Saul · filed 2021-01-06(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) allows objective medical evidence to inform the evaluation of symptom severity, although lack of full corroboration alone cannot justify rejecting symptom testimony.

(SS) Zialcita v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-07(c)(2)

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)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence a relevant factor in evaluating the severity and effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Thurman v. Saul · filed 2021-01-08(c)(2)

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).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence and medical-source information when evaluating the severity and disabling effects of symptoms, but objective evidence alone cannot justify rejecting symptom testimony.

Thompson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-01-27(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).

An ALJ may consider inconsistency between a claimant’s symptom testimony and objective medical evidence when deciding whether to discount that testimony.

Young v. Saul · filed 2021-02-11(c)(1)–(2)

An ALJ may consider inconsistency between a claimant’s symptom testimony and the objective medical evidence in the record in determining whether to discount the claimant’s symptom testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)– (2); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that this ground was applicable here.

Objective medical evidence is relevant to the severity and effects of a claimant’s symptoms, but lack of corroboration alone cannot justify rejecting pain testimony.

(SS) Delgado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-11(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); SSR 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform the assessment of symptom severity, but that evidence alone cannot justify rejecting pain testimony.

Rucker v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-11(c)(2)

Although subjective pain testimony may not be rejected on the sole basis that it is not consistent with 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) (emphasis added); 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(2).

Objective medical evidence helps assess the intensity and persistence of symptoms and their effect on a claimant’s ability to work.

Michles v. Berryhill · filed 2021-02-16(c)(2)

As the ALJ noted, the objective evidence in the record conflicted with Plaintiff’s testimony about her symptoms and functional limitations. 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 and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on your ability to work.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence as one factor in assessing the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Monzella v. Saul · filed 2021-02-16(c)(2)

However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor 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). Here, the ALJ properly considered the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in determining the severity of Petitioner’s symptoms.

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

Early v. Astrue · filed 2007-02-27

This is an improper and inaccurate interpretation of the third prong of the pain standard, which states “that the objectively determined medical condition is of such a severity that it can be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged pain.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to be considered when assessing the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Bonson v. Saul · filed 2021-05-12(c)(2)

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 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 reasons offered, to discount Plaintiff’s symptom complaints.

Objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in evaluating the severity and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, but lack of corroboration alone cannot justify rejecting them.

(SS) Martinez Delgado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-12(c)(2)

Third, the ALJ appropriately identified objective medical evidence undermining the severity of Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms, including the lack of corroborative imaging concerning her back impairment. 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)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s symptom statements are consistent with objective medical evidence.

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2021-05-12(c)(2)

The ALJ properly considered how consistent Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements were with this objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, but a lack of objective support alone cannot justify discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints.

Suhsen, Karl v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-05-13(c)(2)

A lack of objective support in the medical records, standing alone, would be an insufficient reason for the ALJ’s decision to discount Suhsen’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit an ALJ to reject pain testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not support it.

(SS) Grace Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-17(c)(2)

While the ALJ also found that medical record was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ cannot discredit Plaintiff’s pain testimony solely because it is found not to be supported by the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529 cannot require objective medical proof that a claimant’s impairment would reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged.

Polaski v. Heckler · filed 1984-04-27

This regulation, contrary to the Secretary’s contention, does not meet the standard declared by the Eighth Circuit for evaluating complaints of pain. The Secretary’s regulation clearly requires that the individual claimant show sufficient objective proof of his subjective complaints in order to receive benefits.

Section 404.1529 requires medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain a claimant alleges.

Stupakevich v. Chater · filed 1995-12-05

Third, while petitioner complains of pain in his right back, right leg and right foot, the record provides no medical diagnosis or other findings that support a medical condition that reasonably could be expected to produce such pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) bars rejecting a claimant’s account of pain intensity and its effect on work solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate it.

Crawford v. Chater · filed 1998-02-23(c)(3)

The regulation states that a claim about the intensity of pain and its effect on the ability to work will not be rejected "solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements.”

Objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in evaluating the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

James v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-29(c)(2)

And because objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects, it was not error for the ALJ to consider this. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when assessing the intensity, persistence, and work effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-22(c)(2)

In pointing to treatment records and examination findings as outlined in Section B, subsection ii, the ALJ offered a clear and convincing reason to reject Plaintiffs subjective allegation of impairment.

Objective medical evidence may be considered when evaluating symptom testimony, but a lack of supporting medical evidence cannot alone justify rejecting it.

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

While a lack of objective medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for an ALJ to reject pain testimony, it is a proper factor the ALJ may consider in weighing a claimant’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

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

While the ALJ properly rejected plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony based on a lack of objective medical evidence, that may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptom severity solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Pressley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-09(c)(2)

But because the Court determines below that the ALJ’s other proffered reasons are neither ... clear nor convincing, that she considers Plaintiff’s symptom testimony to be unsupported by objective medical evidence cannot alone support discounting that testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting a claimant’s symptom reports solely because objective medical evidence does not support them, but allows that evidence to be considered with other factors.

Anderson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-03(c)(2)

While the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence could not—and did not—serve as the ALJ’s sole reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom reports, the ALJ was still free to consider it as a “relevant factor” in determining the severity and disabling effects of Plaintiff’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to be considered alongside other evidence when assessing the severity and disabling effects of symptoms.

Savage v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-08(c)(2)

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 relevant factor in evaluating the severity and effects of reported symptoms.

Edler v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-10(c)(2)

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). ... The ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s symptom claims were inconsistent with the objective evidence is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence a relevant factor in assessing the severity and disabling effects of symptoms.

Russell v. O'Malley · filed 2021-12-28(c)(2)

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 were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence.

Objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in evaluating the severity and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Douglas v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-01(c)(2)

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 relevant factor in evaluating the severity and effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Ponce v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-04(c)(2)

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).

An ALJ may consider objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms but may not reject a claimant’s statements solely because that evidence does not substantiate them.

Hughes v. Saul · filed 2022-02-09(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.” See 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.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical findings to inform the assessment of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Daniels v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-16(c)(2)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings. As noted above, the ALJ reasonably discounted Plaintiff’s allegations on the grounds that the objective evidence did not support his subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform the evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms and their effect on the ability to work.

McGonagle v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-17(c)(2)

The Court agrees that the objective clinical findings do not support Plaintiff’s description of her limitations. 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 is relevant to the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms, but an ALJ must adequately explain why that evidence undermines the claimant’s account.

Moses v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-25(c)(2)

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). ... The ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s symptom testimony is not consistent with medical evidence is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of objective medical evidence alongside other evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Lynn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-12(a)

Moreover, in cases like the present one, which do not involve fibromyalgia, the ALJ’s reliance on the entire record, including objective evidence, is consistent with applicable regulations.

An ALJ may consider objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom testimony, but cannot rely on it alone to reject that testimony.

Thomas v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-08(c)(2)

However, this reason cannot be the sole factor to reject Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. See Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence but bars rejecting symptom statements solely because that evidence does not substantiate them.

(SS) Villa v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-11(c)(2)

That is, while a lack of objective medical evidence is a proper factor the ALJ may consider in weighing a claimant’s testimony, it cannot form the sole basis presented by the ALJ for rejecting pain testimony.

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

Hart v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-14(c)(2)

The ALJ may not “discredit the claimant’s testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective evidence.” Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 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”). The ALJ failed to provide a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s testimony.

Objective medical evidence may inform the assessment of symptoms, but a claimant’s statements about their severity cannot be rejected solely because that evidence does not substantiate them.

Burns v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-14(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.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats MRI results as objective medical evidence that may be used to assess a claimant’s statements about symptoms, but cannot be the sole basis for discounting them.

Bowles v. Berryhill · filed 2022-12-28(c)(2)

Of the remaining six evidentiary supports, the MRI testing falls squarely within the definition of objective medical evidence under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Accordingly, if the MRI evidence is not consistent with the plaintiff’s subjective statements about the limiting effects of her hearing loss, it may be used to discount those subjective statements, so long as it is not the singular basis for discounting them.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence and medical source information relevant to evaluating the severity and effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Coleman v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-23(c)(2)

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.

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

Patten v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-31(c)(2)

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). ... The ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s symptom claims are inconsistent with objective medical evidence is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Tedesco v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-13(c)(2)

In evaluating the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ may consider objective medical evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), as well as type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication, and treatment, other than medication, among other factors. ... Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ did not fault Plaintiff for the lack of objective evidence substantiating his claim regarding the limiting effects of his impairments, but rather – consistent with federal regulations – found that Plaintiff’s claims regarding the impairments’ limiting effects were contradicted by objective medical evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence and medical source information relevant to assessing the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Smethers v. O'Malley · filed 2023-02-14(c)(2)

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) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptom severity solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

(SS) Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-23(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to evaluating the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms, though lack of objective support alone cannot justify rejecting symptom testimony.

Ruiz v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-20(c)(2)

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. ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that the objective medical evidence is not consistent with Plaintiff’s complaints of disabling symptoms. This finding is supported by substantial evidence and was a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s symptom complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Harding v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-22(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).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Aranda Jr. v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-23(c)(2)

The ALJ properly considered the medical reports and clinical findings (or a lack thereof) to conclude that Plaintiff did not exhibit the limitations and symptoms consistent with his subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence, along with other evidence, when assessing the severity and disabling effects of symptoms.

Robinson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-30(c)(2)

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). ... The ALJ reasonably found Plaintiff’s symptom claims were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. This was a clear and convincing reason, along with the other reasons offered, to reject Plaintiff’s symptom claims.

An ALJ may compare symptom testimony with objective medical evidence but must explain why that evidence undermines a claimant’s reported pain.

Bigler v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-12(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. ... And while the ALJ cited to plaintiff’s multiple treatments for pain, the ALJ did not explain how the objective medical evidence contradicts plaintiff’s claim that she suffered from pain so extreme that it prevented her from working.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) directs adjudicators to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Woods v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-29(c)(2)

The most important factor in evaluating symptom severity is whether the alleged symptoms are substantiated by the objective medical evidence, that is, the signs and clinical/laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5. Signs and clinical/laboratory findings” are within this case’s record and proper weight should be given to them.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows an ALJ to weigh objective medical evidence that conflicts with a claimant’s testimony about the severity of symptoms.

Thiel v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-09(c)(2)

Concerning Plaintiff’s testimony about his physical limitations due to back and hip pain, the ALJ reasonably discounted these allegations as inconsistent with the record. Conflict with objective medical evidence is a sufficient basis for discounting a claimaint’s testimony. Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th at 498; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

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

(SS) Quong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-23(c)(2)

Because he found that plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could be expected to cause the alleged symptoms,” AR 22, he was required to identify reasons other than a lack of objective medical evidence to discount plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats objective medical evidence as a useful indicator of a symptom’s intensity, persistence, and effect on the ability to work.

Bednarz v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-31(c)(2)

The regulations make clear that “[o]bjective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on your ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Plaintiff insists that the case be remanded so that the ALJ can make explicit what is implicit in his analysis, an analysis that both the regulation and Ruling he cited support.

Section 404.1529 allows an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, but a lack of corroborating evidence alone cannot justify rejecting a claimant’s testimony.

Castaneda Sr. v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-18

While objective medical evidence is a useful factor to consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms, the lack of corroborating medical evidence cannot provide the sole basis for rejecting subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows an ALJ to discount symptom testimony based on conflicting objective medical evidence, but the evidence must actually undermine the alleged limitation.

Kenny v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-06(c)(2)

Conflict with objective medical evidence is a sufficient basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th at 498; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... Because nothing in Dr. Vander Waal’s treatment notes calls Plaintiff’s testimony about a need for breaks into question, the Court finds this basis to discount Plaintiff’s testimony was not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence that conflicts with a claimant’s symptom testimony.

Soules v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-17(c)(2)

Conflict with objective medical evidence is a sufficient basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to evaluating the severity and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Bradley v. O'Malley · filed 2023-12-28(c)(2)

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.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount symptom testimony that conflicts with objective medical evidence, but a lack of corroborating evidence alone is insufficient.

Haga v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-05(c)(2)

And Plaintiff is correct, that absence of corroborating objective medical evidence is not a clear and convincing reason to discount subjective symptom testimony about pain; conflict with objective medical evidence is, however.

An ALJ cannot reject a claimant’s pain testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not support it.

Perez v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-19(c)(2)

However, an ALJ cannot rely solely on objective medical evidence to discredit an individual’s pain testimony.

Objective medical evidence can help evaluate symptoms, but a lack of corroborating evidence alone cannot justify rejecting symptom testimony.

Ankenman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-31(c)(2)

The absence of corroborating objective medical evidence is not enough, on its own, however, to reject a claimant’s symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5; Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to be considered when assessing a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

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

Conflict with objective medical evidence is a sufficient basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits an ALJ from discounting a claimant’s symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not fully support them.

Black v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-04(c)(2)

It is well-settled that an ALJ may not discount a claimant’s subjective complaints of disabling symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them. O’Donnell v. Barnhart, 318 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir. 2003); Lewis v. Colvin, 973 F. Supp. 2d 985, 1001-02 (E.D. Mo. 2013). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5.

Objective medical evidence is relevant to symptom severity, but an ALJ must consider relevant findings when assessing whether the evidence supports a claimant’s reported symptoms.

Priser v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-11(c)(2)

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). ... The ALJ provided limited to no analysis in the 2023 decision of objective findings concerning her physical and mental impairments, and the ALJ’s conclusion that the objective record was not fully consistent with Plaintiff’s allegations is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider conflicting objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptom testimony.

Wendland v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-14(c)(2)

The ALJ reasonably discounted Plaintiff’s allegations about the severity of her mental health symptoms as inconsistent with the record. Conflict with objective medical evidence is a sufficient basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting a claimant’s symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

(SS) Deloach v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-04(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence.” See Vertigan, 260 F.3d at 1049 (“The fact that a claimant’s testimony is not fully corroborated by the objective medical findings, in and of itself, is not a clear and convincing reason for rejecting it.”); 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.”).

An ALJ cannot discount symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate it; the ALJ must give an additional reason.

(SS) Baez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-04(c)(2)

Rather, where a claimant’s symptom testimony is not fully substantiated by the objective medical record, the ALJ must provide an additional reason for discounting the testimony.

An ALJ may consider objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms but cannot discount symptom statements solely because that evidence does not substantiate them.

(SS) Salas Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-12(c)(2)

Rather, where a claimant’s symptom testimony is not fully substantiated by the objective medical record, the ALJ must provide an additional reason for discounting the testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Tyler v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-16(c)(2)

The ALJ may not, however, “discredit the claimant’s testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective evidence.” ... Moreover, normal objective findings alone are insufficient on their own to discredit Plaintiff’s testimony.

An ALJ may consider a lack of supporting objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, but may not reject the claimant’s statements solely on that basis.

Urnezis v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-03(c)(2)

It is true that an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). However, a lack of objective medical evidence supporting the degree of limitation is still a factor that an ALJ may consider in assessing credibility. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005). ... Further, the ALJ did not rely exclusively on this inconsistency alone.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, but that evidence cannot be the sole reason for discounting symptom testimony.

Derocher v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-07-09(c)(2)

Objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, though it cannot be the sole ground on which testimony is discounted. ... As such, the ALJ did not err in considering the objective medical evidence when evaluating Plaintiffs subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, but a lack of that evidence alone cannot justify discounting a claimant’s testimony.

Bassindale v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-25(c)

Absent another reason provided by the ALJ to discount plaintiff’s allegations surrounding her physical impairments, a lack of objective medical evidence may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony.

Objective medical evidence is relevant to evaluating the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

(SS) Vanderhoff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-06(c)(2)

However, 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).

Objective medical evidence is relevant to the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms, but lack of supporting evidence alone cannot justify rejecting symptom testimony.

Patten v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-21(c)(2)

However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor 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). ... The ALJ’s interpretation of Plaintiff’s records as undermining the extremity of the debilitation claimed is logical and supported by substantial evidence.

The Commissioner cannot reject statements about the intensity, persistence, or work effects of symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Vanderzanden v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-11(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 discounting Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling fatigue, the ALJ cites the absence of corroborating medical evidence, rather than contrary objective medical evidence, which is error.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to evaluating the severity and effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

(SS)Fiester v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-30(c)(2)

However, 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).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms but does not allow symptom statements to be rejected solely because that evidence does not support them.

ADAMS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-09-11(c)(2)

An ALJ cannot reject a claimant’s statements “solely” because they are not supported by the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49465. But that is not what the ALJ here did.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(2) allows an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between reported symptoms and objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom testimony.

Godfrey · filed 2026-01-12(c)(1)-(2)

The Court finds that these inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s reported symptoms and the objective medical evidence was an appropriate reason for the ALJ to discount Plaintiff’s testimony and supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(2) allows consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, but the evidence must support an asserted inconsistency with the claimant’s testimony.

Johnston · filed 2026-03-06(c)(1)-(2)

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s symptom testimony based on objective medical evidence in the record. ... The Court finds that the ALJ erred by discounting Plaintiff’s testimony based on his mental status exams.